lets see how the gun control dems handle this

[BULLDOG]

AND, to the other poster, if a private ship contracts with the United States or any other government, then they aren't "private" ships anymore. Just like the government with contract with "security forces" like Blackwater. That doesn't mean that private citizens can own war ships or missiles.

Why could the government contract for a war ship if someone didn't already legally own one?

Do you think people could ever own war ships?? Of course they didn't. These private ships were probably outfitted with canons is all. Good grief!

Too much trouble to look up examples. Instead, why don't you show where those exemptions are in the constitution for fully automatic arms today? Your question was about exemptions to the 2nd in the constitution. (there are none listed there)

It was understood back then that arms meant small arms. If you did some research about your rights, you would understand this.

Link?

 

[BULLDOG]

AND, to the other poster, if a private ship contracts with the United States or any other government, then they aren't "private" ships anymore. Just like the government with contract with "security forces" like Blackwater. That doesn't mean that private citizens can own war ships or missiles.

Why could the government contract for a war ship if someone didn't already legally own one?

Do you think people could ever own war ships?? Of course they didn't. These private ships were probably outfitted with canons is all. Good grief!

Too much trouble to look up examples. Instead, why don't you show where those exemptions are in the constitution for fully automatic arms today? Your question was about exemptions to the 2nd in the constitution. (there are none listed there)

Yeah, it didn't include automatic weapons. So . . . as you can see, the government has ALREADY been infringing upon our rights for YEARS, and I suppose you are okay with that? this is why we need to teach the children about their rights and WHY they are precious to us all.

Yes, I'm OK with automatic weapons not being widely used.

 

[BULLDOG]

Just leave our rights be, leftists. Once you allow the government to step all over one right, what's to stop them from doing the same to other rights? Oh, that's right, nothing.

Also, since 70% of criminals and murderers obtain their weapons through ILLEGAL means (big surprise for some of you, I suppose), then your banning things and restricting things doesn't do anything. MURDER is already against the law!

Then background checks would limit those legal purchases. Why do you want to make it easier for a thug to get a gun?

Did you read Obama's 2010 study conducted by the CDC? I'm willing to BET that you did not.

I'm sure you are willing to bet a lot of things. Just a few posts back you would have bet that the Federalist papers were a legal document with active bearing on our laws.

They are. Duh. Well . . . did you read the Obama study from 2010? Yes or no.

No they aren't Duh.

 

[Yarddog]

Moronic thread premise.

‘Dems’ have no problem with citizens taking a gun training course, gay Americans in particular, given their likelihood of becoming victims of hateful rightwing bigots.

And firearm regulatory measures are more than just the regulation of actual firearms.

You say this now, but so often we are told by folks on the left, EVEN USED IN SELF DEFENSE GUNS ARE INNEFECTIVE. That your more likeley to shoot yourself or an innocent bystander, or the bad guy will take your gun away from you. People on here have said they cannot recall one case where self defence with a gun has worked.
I'm not saying this is YOIUR stance, but I sure have seen that arguement on USMB.

So yes, this might be seen as just a little surprising to some of THOSE folks i would bet. But I'm glad to see we can now agree on Carry permits for law abiding citizens

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

AND, to the other poster, if a private ship contracts with the United States or any other government, then they aren't "private" ships anymore. Just like the government with contract with "security forces" like Blackwater. That doesn't mean that private citizens can own war ships or missiles.

Why could the government contract for a war ship if someone didn't already legally own one?

Do you think people could ever own war ships?? Of course they didn't. These private ships were probably outfitted with canons is all. Good grief!

Too much trouble to look up examples. Instead, why don't you show where those exemptions are in the constitution for fully automatic arms today? Your question was about exemptions to the 2nd in the constitution. (there are none listed there)

It was understood back then that arms meant small arms. If you did some research about your rights, you would understand this.

If you did some research you’d understand that fully automatic weapons are not entitled to Constitutional protections:

“A federal appeals court agreed Wednesday that the Second Amendment doesn’t allow U.S. citizens to own machine guns, rejecting once again a claim brought by a Pennsylvania man who unsuccessfully attempted to acquire a military-style firearm by registering it through his family trust.”

Machine gun ban upheld by federal appeals court news

 

[OKTexas]

Just leave our rights be, leftists. Once you allow the government to step all over one right, what's to stop them from doing the same to other rights? Oh, that's right, nothing.

Also, since 70% of criminals and murderers obtain their weapons through ILLEGAL means (big surprise for some of you, I suppose), then your banning things and restricting things doesn't do anything. MURDER is already against the law!

Then background checks would limit those legal purchases. Why do you want to make it easier for a thug to get a gun?

Thugs are normally prohibited from legal gun purchases, or are you labeling innocent people as thugs?

No Thugs are thugs. An individual has no obligation to find out or even care if the person they are selling to is a thug. Without that obligation, lots of innocent people will sell guns to more thugs. As you know, they don't care about the law, but I suggest those innocent people would follow the law forcing the thug to find another source.

How many, give me a number with a link.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

"lets see how the gun control dems handle this"

We already know that most on the right can’t handle facts of law – including the settled and accepted fact of law that the Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited,’ that it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government, and that the Supreme Court determines which restrictions are reasonable and which are not.

 

[BULLDOG]

Just leave our rights be, leftists. Once you allow the government to step all over one right, what's to stop them from doing the same to other rights? Oh, that's right, nothing.

Also, since 70% of criminals and murderers obtain their weapons through ILLEGAL means (big surprise for some of you, I suppose), then your banning things and restricting things doesn't do anything. MURDER is already against the law!

Then background checks would limit those legal purchases. Why do you want to make it easier for a thug to get a gun?

Thugs are normally prohibited from legal gun purchases, or are you labeling innocent people as thugs?

No Thugs are thugs. An individual has no obligation to find out or even care if the person they are selling to is a thug. Without that obligation, lots of innocent people will sell guns to more thugs. As you know, they don't care about the law, but I suggest those innocent people would follow the law forcing the thug to find another source.

How many, give me a number with a link.

How the hell should I know? If an under aged kid wants alcohol bad enough, he will get some, but we still check his ID before he can buy. If he had a source that could legally sell him alcohol without any obligation to check his Id, a lot more kids would be getting drunk. Any individual legally selling guns without a background check makes it a lot easier for someone who shouldn't have a gun to get one.

 

[westwall]

What you ignore is people have very legitimate uses for those weapons with high capacity magazines. I don't have one right now, but I'm seriously considering buying one next week with a night vision scope. Wild hogs are devastating my property. Imagine trying run a lawn mower though a plowed field, that's what you get with hogs.

You don't need that many shots before reloading for hogs.My 870 has a three round plug, and I do just fine.

Really, my neighbor caught 15 in one frame on a game camera. Also you're not going to kill a hog at any distance with a shotgun.

Damn. What were all those big fat things I spent all those weekends shooting on my lease?

What were you shooting, slugs. Even they aren't accurate outside 30 yards. I'll be looking at shots up to 120 yards.

You claim to be making 120 yd shots through a nite scope? Quit blowing smoke up my ass.

Seriously? You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. I have a Gen II+ scope that I regularly use out to 300 yards. The Gen III stuff is waaay better than that.

 

[westwall]

"lets see how the gun control dems handle this"

We already know that most on the right can’t handle facts of law – including the settled and accepted fact of law that the Second Amendment is not ‘unlimited,’ that it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government, and that the Supreme Court determines which restrictions are reasonable and which are not.

Oh just quit with canned BS. Get an original thought FFS.

 

[BULLDOG]

You don't need that many shots before reloading for hogs.My 870 has a three round plug, and I do just fine.

Really, my neighbor caught 15 in one frame on a game camera. Also you're not going to kill a hog at any distance with a shotgun.

Damn. What were all those big fat things I spent all those weekends shooting on my lease?

What were you shooting, slugs. Even they aren't accurate outside 30 yards. I'll be looking at shots up to 120 yards.

You claim to be making 120 yd shots through a nite scope? Quit blowing smoke up my ass.

Seriously? You have no fucking clue what you're talking about. I have a Gen II+ scope that I regularly use out to 300 yards. The Gen III stuff is waaay better than that.

300 yds? With gen2, you can't tell the difference between a deer and a dog much more than 75 or 100 yds. I guess if you really don't care to know exactly what you're shooting at, you could push that to 300. I just hope I'm never anywhere near you with a gun.

 

[tyroneweaver]

What's your idea of reasonable? Fuck face

Been down that road a million times. I name a couple reasonable measures, and you claim laws don't mean anything because there are still crooks. You're wrong.

Name one law that will stop mass shootings?

That's your problem. You act like making it harder for one person to kill so many in such a short time is not worth while. You're an idiot.

There are millions upon millions of ARs in this country... And a handful of them are used in crimes percentage wise - like a tiny percentage of a percentage of a percentage...
The thinking of gun control as a necessarily need is delusional at best. There are much bigger fish to fry
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

It's not about doing away with guns dumbass. It's about trying to keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and reducing the number of shots that can be fired before stopping to reload. Of course, like I said before, you think laws are useless, so you are just fine with how many people can be killed in a very short time.

Keeping them out of the hands of muslims would go a long way

 

[Wilbur Right]

Name one law that will stop mass shootings? And how? Be specific

Change the age a young man can buy a gun to age 30.
Simple, effective and no harm to anyone.


If that isn't acceptable, how about limiting the types of guns young men under 30 can buy to revolvers and single shot .22 rifles?

While this would not be 100% effective, it would seriously cut down the types of mass shootings we have seen lately. As well as helping curb straw buyers, kids finding dads gun, domestic violence with a gun involved etc.

There ya go. A real solution.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I don't know why they were surprised by the turn out, them dems loves thay free stuff.

It is proof that those who don't support gun rights have never been in a situation where they wish they had one.

You realize that wanting reasonable restrictions isn't the same as wanting to do away with all guns don't you?

We already have reasonable restrictions

 

[Rustic]

What's your idea of reasonable? Fuck face

Been down that road a million times. I name a couple reasonable measures, and you claim laws don't mean anything because there are still crooks. You're wrong.

Name one law that will stop mass shootings?

That's your problem. You act like making it harder for one person to kill so many in such a short time is not worth while. You're an idiot.

There are millions upon millions of ARs in this country... And a handful of them are used in crimes percentage wise - like a tiny percentage of a percentage of a percentage...
The thinking of gun control as a necessarily need is delusional at best. There are much bigger fish to fry
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

It's not about doing away with guns dumbass. It's about trying to keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and reducing the number of shots that can be fired before stopping to reload. Of course, like I said before, you think laws are useless, so you are just fine with how many people can be killed in a very short time.

Reloading takes milliseconds with just a little practice you stupid dolt.
Anything the anti-gun nutters come up with is going to be frivolous at best…

 

[Rustic]

Name one law that will stop mass shootings?

That's your problem. You act like making it harder for one person to kill so many in such a short time is not worth while. You're an idiot.

There are millions upon millions of ARs in this country... And a handful of them are used in crimes percentage wise - like a tiny percentage of a percentage of a percentage...
The thinking of gun control as a necessarily need is delusional at best. There are much bigger fish to fry
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

It's not about doing away with guns dumbass. It's about trying to keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and reducing the number of shots that can be fired before stopping to reload. Of course, like I said before, you think laws are useless, so you are just fine with how many people can be killed in a very short time.

What you ignore is people have very legitimate uses for those weapons with high capacity magazines. I don't have one right now, but I'm seriously considering buying one next week with a night vision scope. Wild hogs are devastating my property. Imagine trying run a lawn mower though a plowed field, that's what you get with hogs.

You don't need that many shots before reloading for hogs.My 870 has a three round plug, and I do just fine.

Progressives are in no position in telling other people what they "need"...

 

[Rustic]

Just leave our rights be, leftists. Once you allow the government to step all over one right, what's to stop them from doing the same to other rights? Oh, that's right, nothing.

Also, since 70% of criminals and murderers obtain their weapons through ILLEGAL means (big surprise for some of you, I suppose), then your banning things and restricting things doesn't do anything. MURDER is already against the law!

Then background checks would limit those legal purchases. Why do you want to make it easier for a thug to get a gun?

Criminals don't buy firearms legally, most firearms used in criminal activity are stolen or come from south of the border. Dumbass

 

[Rustic]

I don't know why they were surprised by the turn out, them dems loves thay free stuff.

It is proof that those who don't support gun rights have never been in a situation where they wish they had one.

It’s not proof of anything but the stupidity common to most on the right.

And guns don’t have ‘rights,’ citizens do – and although inalienable, the Second Amendment right is not absolute, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government.

What is or is not reasonable is determined by the courts, and ultimately the Supreme Court, where none of the measures advocated by democrats have been ruled as un-Constitutional.

Those "restrictions" should not be set up by the anti-gun nutters though...
Progressives have no commonsense, they are a bunch of fucked in the head control freaks not worth listening to.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Been down that road a million times. I name a couple reasonable measures, and you claim laws don't mean anything because there are still crooks. You're wrong.

Name one law that will stop mass shootings?

That's your problem. You act like making it harder for one person to kill so many in such a short time is not worth while. You're an idiot.

There are millions upon millions of ARs in this country... And a handful of them are used in crimes percentage wise - like a tiny percentage of a percentage of a percentage...
The thinking of gun control as a necessarily need is delusional at best. There are much bigger fish to fry
2016 Real Time Death Statistics in America

It's not about doing away with guns dumbass. It's about trying to keep them out of the hands of people who shouldn't have them, and reducing the number of shots that can be fired before stopping to reload. Of course, like I said before, you think laws are useless, so you are just fine with how many people can be killed in a very short time.

What you ignore is people have very legitimate uses for those weapons with high capacity magazines. I don't have one right now, but I'm seriously considering buying one next week with a night vision scope. Wild hogs are devastating my property. Imagine trying run a lawn mower though a plowed field, that's what you get with hogs.

you should get one before the prices go up

another thing to consider if you are at least somewhat mechanically inclined

is the 90 % finished lower billet no serial number is required

a rifle the never existed

 

[Rustic]

Name one law that will stop mass shootings? And how? Be specific

Change the age a young man can buy a gun to age 30.
Simple, effective and no harm to anyone.


If that isn't acceptable, how about limiting the types of guns young men under 30 can buy to revolvers and single shot .22 rifles?

While this would not be 100% effective, it would seriously cut down the types of mass shootings we have seen lately. As well as helping curb straw buyers, kids finding dads gun, domestic violence with a gun involved etc.

There ya go. A real solution.

Sounds very frivolous, control freaks might like it. But any law-abiding citizen that is not a anti-gun Nutter will tell you to fuck off.
Most of the mass shootings done lately have been done by progressive fuck ups… That's what happens when you have far too much socialism in your government. Dumbass