Own guns, learn how to use them, fight the anti-gun nimrods.

[Woodznutz]

Carrying at the post office, even on post office property like the parking lot, will get you 10 years. I park across the street from the post office and leave my gun in the car.

I was kidding about the post office (and I seldom go to Walmart).

 

[Woodznutz]

That is exactly why America is the nation of Rambos it is.
Tell the parents of that kid that got shot in a school in buffalo you want more guns.
You're brain dead.

I meant more good guys with guns.

 

[Woodznutz]

Moron.......rifles of any time are the least used of any gun in a crime....the democrats thought that since most people don't own a rifle, they could get away with banning them.........their bill wasn't intended to stop crime, it was created to allow them to confiscate the guns when they found them....and punish the owners for the sin of owning a gun...

You doofus.

True. Handguns for crime, long guns for revolution (or deer hunting).

 

[M14 Shooter]

That is exactly why America is the nation of Rambos it is.
Tell the parents of that kid that got shot in a school in buffalo you want more guns.
You're brain dead.

Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.

 

[M14 Shooter]

No, it would stop the sale/manufacture of them too, further reducing the numbers.
What do you expect them to do?

Fact remains:
A ban on 'assault weapons' cannot do anything to reduce the number of shootings with 'assault weapons' and 'high capacity magazines'. only confiscate them afterwards - which the police do anyway.
Thus, it is a unnecessary and ineffective restriction on the right to keep and bear arms - your favorite kind.

You're FOS.
Most reviews of the 1994 version of the assault weapons ban point to loopholes in the text of the bill that, some argue, made it less effective than some would have wanted.

The Democrats wrote and passed the 1994 AWB.
They put those "loopholes" there.
They put the sunset there.

Less magazine capacity, the fewer people would take bullets for granted, thus better shooting.

And thus, your inability to Draw the necessary relationship between my post and your response, and show how it logically follows. Thank you

The 2nd amendment as written doesn't give "prima facie" to all weapons

As written, it protects the right to own and use everything form a penknife to nuclear weapons.
As ruled upon, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
So, you decide which interpretation you want.
Either way, in no way shape or form can it be honestly argued that it protects only the weapons available in 1791.

NOTHING is guaranteed, it may have or not.

And thus, you agree:
"One more law" would have been useless to stop this crime.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It still took a court to extend that privilege, NOT the constitution.

Look at you, refusing to understand the right to keep and bear arms is a right, not a privilege.
You fucking retard.

 

[woodwork201]

Sure Q NUT.
Speed limit laws are enforced just to give out tickets.
What a moron, perfect Trumptard.

Speed limit laws are enforced just to give out tickets. Red light violations were moved to yellow light violations just to give out tickets. Underover, unmarked, traffic cops so they can give out more tickets when fewer cars with roof-top bar lights would do more to slow drivers. Traffic enforcement is all about revenue.

 

[2aguy]

You fucking retard.

Why do you think I included this?
'In Caetano v. Massachusetts (2016), the Supreme Court reiterated its earlier rulings that "the Second Amendment extends, prima facie"

It still took a court to extend that privilege, NOT the constitution.

No, shithead...they didn't extend it, it is a Right...not a privilege......and the only reason they had to rule on these stupid things, is idiots like you decided you wanted to end them.......before, everyone understood that Americans have the Right to own and carry guns......then fascists like you decided you didn't like that, and started passing laws that violated the Right...so it went to court to explain to idiots like you that we have always had the Right, the Constitution does not create it, or grant it........the Right existed before the Constitution and the Bill of Righs...

You moron..

 

[Colin norris]

I meant more good guys with guns.

Oh sure. That'll help. Are you really that thick?
The problem is ratbags with guns yet to solve the problem you think we need more guns????
Do you ever read what you say? Piss off idiot.

 

[Colin norris]

No...tell that kid in Buffalo that the party they likely voted for, the democrat party, keeps releasing the very monsters who shoot innocent people....that is the problem...

The kid wasn't a criminal, he's not .old enough to vote and your presumption is based on lies and hate.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Oh sure. That'll help. Are you really that thick?
The problem is ratbags with guns yet to solve the problem you think we need more guns????
Do you ever read what you say? Piss off idiot.

Thank you for further illustrating your ignorance, bigotry and irrational fear.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Fact remains:
A ban on 'assault weapons' cannot do anything to reduce the number of shootings with 'assault weapons' and 'high capacity magazines'. only confiscate them afterwards - which the police do anyway.
Thus, it is a unnecessary and ineffective restriction on the right to keep and bear arms - your favorite kind.

FOS.
YOUR opinion.

The Democrats wrote and passed the 1994 AWB.
They put those "loopholes" there.
They put the sunset there.

Again.............FOS.

And thus, your inability to Draw the necessary relationship between my post and your response, and show how it logically follows. Thank you

As written, it protects the right to own and use everything form a penknife to nuclear weapons.

Really, Thomas Jefferson was really Nostradamus.
Jefferson had visions of citizen's walking around with mini-nukes.

As ruled upon, the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
So, you decide which interpretation you want.
Either way, in no way shape or form can it be honestly argued that it protects only the weapons available in 1791.

Yes, it does.
There's your Nostradamus, thinking coming back, again.

And thus, you agree:
"One more law" would have been useless to stop this crime.

Wrong.

Red lights fail to stop car crashes at intersections.
Let's just eliminate them.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

Look at you, refusing to understand the right to keep and bear arms is a right, not a privilege.
You fucking retard.

Look at you, referring to bumper sticker mentality.

Why do you lose your right to carry a firearm in a federal courthouse?
Why do you lose your right to carry a firearm in an airport?
Why do you lose your right to carry a firearm on an airliner?
Who do you lose your right to carry a firearm if you get convicted of domestic abuse?

So much for your "rights" idiot.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

No, shithead...they didn't extend it, it is a Right...not a privilege......and the only reason they had to rule on these stupid things, is idiots like you decided you wanted to end them.......before, everyone understood that Americans have the Right to own and carry guns......then fascists like you decided you didn't like that, and started passing laws that violated the Right...so it went to court to explain to idiots like you that we have always had the Right, the Constitution does not create it, or grant it........the Right existed before the Constitution and the Bill of Righs...

You moron..

Sure Q NUT, imbecile.
The right to carry bearable firearms existed before the constitution?
Automatic weapons are "bearable".
You can't own them, without a license, fee, and background check.
WTF happened to your "rights"?

 

[2aguy]

Sure Q NUT, imbecile.
The right to carry bearable firearms existed before the constitution?
Automatic weapons are "bearable".
You can't own them, without a license, fee, and background check.
WTF happened to your "rights"?

The government stole them, you idiot.

 

[Nuthin' Fancy]

The government stole them, you idiot.

Sure they did Q NUT.
Why aren't gun nuts suing them?

Maybe when JFK Jr. comes back, he'll take up the cause.

 

[M14 Shooter]

FOS.
YOUR opinion.

I accept your surrender.

Again.............FOS.

You speak from ignorance or dishonesty.
Either way, I accept your surender.

Really, Thomas Jefferson was really Nostradamus.
Jefferson had visions of citizen's walking around with mini-nukes.I

^^^^
Irrelevant nonsense.

Yes, it does.

You speak from ignorance or dishonesty.
Either way, I accept your surrender.

As usual.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Look at you, referring to bumper sticker mentality.

Look at you, unwilling to accept the truth.

Why do you lose your right to carry a firearm in a federal courthouse?
Why do you lose your right to carry a firearm in an airport?
Why do you lose your right to carry a firearm on an airliner?
Who do you lose your right to carry a firearm if you get convicted of domestic abuse?

All rights can be removed through due process., and all rights have limitations.
If that, to you, means a right is not actually a right, but a privilege, then you must believe you have -no- rights.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The right to carry bearable firearms existed before the constitution?

Just like every other right.

Automatic weapons are "bearable".

They are not "bearable arms" as the term is used in the context of the 2nd.
How do you now know this?

 

[woodwork201]

Look at you, unwilling to accept the truth.

All rights can be removed through due process., and all rights have limitations.
If that, to you, means a right is not actually a right, but a privilege, then you must believe you have -no- rights.

No, they cannot be taken through due process. They can be infringed through tyranny only. Your post seems to agree with Smokin' OP more than it disagrees. I think you're trying to appear "sensible" rather than holding firm with your beliefs.

There is no "except when" clause in the Constitution's protections of rights and, as rights, they cannot be stripped by government. You know this. Stand firm.