Poll: 2/3 of Americans Would Defy Federal Gun Ban

[Dubya]

And nuts still use it to hurt people, and people who can actually use it are inconvienced for something that happened less often then people driving in traffic accidents.

So nuts can still get access to the black powder, and someone who wants to use it to blast a stump has to fill out 10 forms of paperwork. And you get to FEEL safer without actually BEING safer. Form over function, and government regulation over self responsibility.

You obviously can't do anything more than act stupid. Nut's aren't using dynamite to hurt people still like they would if they could just go to the hardware store and buy it. Black powder would be an expensive and stupid way to blow stumps.

You just like running your mouth, no brain attached, and demonstrate the nutty way you think. Try doing it around enough people who know you and see how long you keep your guns!

Plenty of people use black powder to blow stumps. If all you have is "YUR STUPID HURR DURR DURR" as a retort, then i can tell you have no reasonable response to any of my points.

[ame=http://youtu.be/EA4jjML3H-A]Black Powder Explosion Stump Removal - YouTube[/ame]

What part of it being too expensive is hard to figure out? Post the price to blow a stump with black powder! If black powder is cheap, why were they using dynamite when I was a kid? For that matter, why was even a market for dynamite to replace black powder as an exposive?

You choose to post stupid things.

 

[martybegan]

You obviously can't do anything more than act stupid. Nut's aren't using dynamite to hurt people still like they would if they could just go to the hardware store and buy it. Black powder would be an expensive and stupid way to blow stumps.

You just like running your mouth, no brain attached, and demonstrate the nutty way you think. Try doing it around enough people who know you and see how long you keep your guns!

Plenty of people use black powder to blow stumps. If all you have is "YUR STUPID HURR DURR DURR" as a retort, then i can tell you have no reasonable response to any of my points.

[ame=http://youtu.be/EA4jjML3H-A]Black Powder Explosion Stump Removal - YouTube[/ame]

What part of it being too expensive is hard to figure out? Post the price to blow a stump with black powder! If black powder is cheap, why were they using dynamite when I was a kid? For that matter, why was even a market for dynamite to replace black powder as an exposive?

You choose to post stupid things.

Who cares if its more expensive. Its not a stupid way of doing it, looks pretty cool actually.

They use dynamite because yes it was easier, but you can still use any explosive to make something go boom.

and explosives have been used or attempted to be used in plenty of crimes.

Lawrence man pleads guilty to criminal use of explosives / LJWorld.com

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20130127/WDH01/301270256/Crime-Stoppers-Homeowner-reports-explosives

Couple Arrested on Explosives Charges; Woman Gives Birth in Custody ? Crime Library

 

[Dubya]

Plenty of people use black powder to blow stumps. If all you have is "YUR STUPID HURR DURR DURR" as a retort, then i can tell you have no reasonable response to any of my points.

Black Powder Explosion Stump Removal - YouTube

What part of it being too expensive is hard to figure out? Post the price to blow a stump with black powder! If black powder is cheap, why were they using dynamite when I was a kid? For that matter, why was even a market for dynamite to replace black powder as an exposive?

You choose to post stupid things.

Who cares if its more expensive. Its not a stupid way of doing it, looks pretty cool actually.

They use dynamite because yes it was easier, but you can still use any explosive to make something go boom.

and explosives have been used or attempted to be used in plenty of crimes.

Lawrence man pleads guilty to criminal use of explosives / LJWorld.com

http://www.wausaudailyherald.com/article/20130127/WDH01/301270256/Crime-Stoppers-Homeowner-reports-explosives

Couple Arrested on Explosives Charges; Woman Gives Birth in Custody ? Crime Library

Did you see the trees around the stump he was blowing? There are chemicals you can put on that stump and make it rot in the woods. The people I remember who were removing stumps were trying to make fields in their place. It would take a hell of a lot of black powder to blow the stumps I'm talking about. Black powder is also more dangerous to blow than dynamite. Somebody doing something stupid like smoking around it could easily be killed or injured with severe burns. I was making my own gun powder when I was 12 years old.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Black powder is also more dangerous to blow than dynamite. Somebody doing something stupid like smoking around it could easily be killed or injured with severe burns. I was making my own gun powder when I was 12 years old.

You do not know what you are talking about.

"Dynamite was invented by Alfred Nobel and was the first safely manageable explosive stronger than black powder."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamite

 

[Dubya]

Black powder is also more dangerous to blow than dynamite. Somebody doing something stupid like smoking around it could easily be killed or injured with severe burns. I was making my own gun powder when I was 12 years old.

You do not know what you are talking about.

"Dynamite was invented by Alfred Nobel and was the first safely manageable explosive stronger than black powder."

Dynamite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You don't know how to read.

Dynamite was invented by Alfred Nobel and was the first safely manageable explosive stronger than black powder. Nobel obtained patents for his invention: in England on May 7, 1867 and in Sweden on October 19, 1867.[3] He originally sold dynamite as "Nobel's Blasting Powder". After its introduction, dynamite rapidly gained wide-scale use as a safe alternative to gunpowder and nitroglycerin.

Source: Dynamite - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Cowman]

Actually they are considered antiques, or collectables.

What they really are is obsolete. When the amendment was written, it did not specify muskets, it was understood "arms" was the common arm in use at the time, then a musket, or a rifled musket.

Since technology moves on, arms change, but the concept of the type of arm the founders were talking about did not, the individual long arm. Today the common manifestation of this is the semiautomatic rifle.

Please note that even the military is shying away from full auto weapons for infantryman, going with three round burst weapons. Full auto is now reserved for a dedicated heavy weapons person.

Do you people not even see the corner you're painting yourself into? How is this even this easy?

Please explain, because the corner you think I am in is really only in your mind.

Muskets are not controlled weapons, because they are obsolete. USING one in a crime, say shooting someone, is still a crime.

They have deregulated possession because of thier obsolescence.

The corner is, you guys keep referencing federal laws on what it means for a weapon to be considered "arms" or not. You're talking about supreme court decisions ruling that certain arms are not classified as arms when it comes to the constitution.

And I've been telling you all along, that because you guys are fine with those sorts of things, people will be fine with it in the future if they roll around.

It also means there have been precedents set in regards to what gets classified as legal under the 2nd ammendment or not, by the federal government. Assault Rifles could easily face the same fate, by the same ruling bodies that you seem to refer to when trying to prove your own arguments.

It's HILARIOUS.

 

[martybegan]

Do you people not even see the corner you're painting yourself into? How is this even this easy?

Please explain, because the corner you think I am in is really only in your mind.

Muskets are not controlled weapons, because they are obsolete. USING one in a crime, say shooting someone, is still a crime.

They have deregulated possession because of thier obsolescence.

The corner is, you guys keep referencing federal laws on what it means for a weapon to be considered "arms" or not. You're talking about supreme court decisions ruling that certain arms are not classified as arms when it comes to the constitution.

And I've been telling you all along, that because you guys are fine with those sorts of things, people will be fine with it in the future if they roll around.

It also means there have been precedents set in regards to what gets classified as legal under the 2nd ammendment or not, by the federal government. Assault Rifles could easily face the same fate, by the same ruling bodies that you seem to refer to when trying to prove your own arguments.

It's HILARIOUS.

The only point worth understanding is that the writers of the amendment did not reference a specific model of "arm." What the milita was expected to bring with them was the most modern long arm availible at the time, which was the smoothbore musket, or the "kentucky" rifle. Thus the citizen brought with them the latest in military technology.

Most supporters of the 2nd amendment will agree crew serviced weapons and anything classified as artillery is beyond the scope of the amendment (you have purists that disagree). However, since today's modern equivalent of the musket is at a minimum a semi automatic long rifle, I personally believe this is the "arm" (and others less than it) are included in the protections under the 2nd amendment.

That the feds and states think to DECLASSIFY muskets is thier perogative, as it actually lessens any control on thier possesion. The simple fact is muskets are obsolete, and are not a modern "arm."

It would be like thinking the founders would only allow the milita to be armed with maces and pikes at the time of the 2nd amendments writing.

The final thing you neglect to understand, either through willful ignorance or outright stubborness is that 99% of the consitution is limits on GOVERNMENT. Once something is explicitly given as a right to the people consitutionally, you either have to amend the consitution, or be as circumspect in limiting the right as possible. Even in those cases only the actual use of said right in causing actual harm to a person can be punished.

We do not gag people in theatres just in case they may yell "fire." The police don't automatically get a warrant every time they go out on patrol "just in case" Thus why should people be banned from owning a common form of firearm "just in case" a few may misuse them?

There are only few things the consitution bans PEOPLE from doing, including running for certain federal offices before a certain age, owning slaves, and transporting spiritous beverages into states, counties, or cities that prohibit it.

 

[Cowman]

The only point worth understanding is that the writers of the amendment did not reference a specific model of "arm." What the milita was expected to bring with them was the most modern long arm availible at the time, which was the smoothbore musket, or the "kentucky" rifle. Thus the citizen brought with them the latest in military technology.

Exactly, it says nothing about specifying "arms". But you people keep saying bullshit stuff like "common use" as a qualifier, to try and justify for yourselves why certain types of arms were banned by the federal government.

Fact of the matter is, it doesn't specify. Fact of the matter is, the government has regulated what types of arms constitute arms. Fact of the matter is, they can do it again, and a precedent was set in the past for them to do it.

Them going and banning assault rifles would be technically no different than when explosive arms and munitions were banned earlier in time.

The only difference is, how much you choose to bitch about it now as opposed to then.

 

[martybegan]

The only point worth understanding is that the writers of the amendment did not reference a specific model of "arm." What the milita was expected to bring with them was the most modern long arm availible at the time, which was the smoothbore musket, or the "kentucky" rifle. Thus the citizen brought with them the latest in military technology.

Exactly, it says nothing about specifying "arms". But you people keep saying bullshit stuff like "common use" as a qualifier, to try and justify for yourselves why certain types of arms were banned by the federal government.

Fact of the matter is, it doesn't specify. Fact of the matter is, the government has regulated what types of arms constitute arms. Fact of the matter is, they can do it again, and a precedent was set in the past for them to do it.

Them going and banning assault rifles would be technically no different than when explosive arms and munitions were banned earlier in time.

The only difference is, how much you choose to bitch about it now as opposed to then.

So if it doesn't specify, and its listed as a right, you have to err on the side of the people, not the government.

And its not just me "bitching" The people define the line, and right now they are pissed that the gun restriction freaks are pushing against said line. Massive increases in gun sales, NRA membership, and overall internet response shows this.

You dont see people running out buying cannons and stinger missiles, even illegally. What you see is people out buying massive amounts of semi auto rifles.

Going and banning SEMI AUTOMATIC RIFLES" would be the equivalent of banning the internet regardless of the 1st amendment, because dammit, it can spread information SO MUCH FASTER than the printing press or the spoken word.

 

[Contumacious]

Exactly, it says nothing about specifying "arms". .

You are right again.

Every-time I read about the Jews needing assault type rifles to defeat the nazis it makes me so angry.

Why can't the Jews understand that Adolf Hitler was the duly elected Fuhrer. And if he decided that national security required the Jews to be incinerated alive , by golly, that's what they deserved.

So in conclusion , Americans have the right to carry BB guns ....but nothing powerful enough to kill a stormtroopers. After all our bureaucrats are saints and angels.

.

 

[martybegan]

Exactly, it says nothing about specifying "arms". .

You are right again.

Every-time I read about the Jews needing assault type rifles to defeat the nazis it makes me so angry.

Why can't the Jews understand that Adolf Hitler was the duly elected Fuhrer. And if he decided that national security required the Jews to be incinerated alive , by golly, that's what they deserved.

So in conclusion , Americans have the right to carry BB guns ....but nothing powerful enough to kill a stormtroopers. After all our bureaucrats are saints and angels.

.

And the police will always be there in seconds. But who cares? The criminals all attack with pillows and pixie dust.

 

[Contumacious]

Exactly, it says nothing about specifying "arms". .

You are right again.

Every-time I read about the Jews needing assault type rifles to defeat the nazis it makes me so angry.

Why can't the Jews understand that Adolf Hitler was the duly elected Fuhrer. And if he decided that national security required the Jews to be incinerated alive , by golly, that's what they deserved.

So in conclusion , Americans have the right to carry BB guns ....but nothing powerful enough to kill a stormtroopers. After all our bureaucrats are saints and angels.

.

And the police will always be there in seconds. But who cares? The criminals all attack with pillows and pixie dust.

Well in Newton , Conn they took over 10 minutes. But who gives a shit. The police have the right to eat doughnuts.

If you die while waiting, then you die. What's the big fucking deal !!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Remember folks the Constitution states that you have the right to CCW BB guns or sling shots. Nothing more.

..

 

[Cowman]

Exactly, it says nothing about specifying "arms". .

You are right again.

Every-time I read about the Jews needing assault type rifles to defeat the nazis it makes me so angry.

Why can't the Jews understand that Adolf Hitler was the duly elected Fuhrer. And if he decided that national security required the Jews to be incinerated alive , by golly, that's what they deserved.

So in conclusion , Americans have the right to carry BB guns ....but nothing powerful enough to kill a stormtroopers. After all our bureaucrats are saints and angels.

.

Godwin's law.

Undermining yourself.

 

[Contumacious]

Exactly, it says nothing about specifying "arms". .

You are right again.

Every-time I read about the Jews needing assault type rifles to defeat the nazis it makes me so angry.

Why can't the Jews understand that Adolf Hitler was the duly elected Fuhrer. And if he decided that national security required the Jews to be incinerated alive , by golly, that's what they deserved.

So in conclusion , Americans have the right to carry BB guns ....but nothing powerful enough to kill a stormtroopers. After all our bureaucrats are saints and angels.

.

Godwin's law.

Undermining yourself.

Ooooops , I totally forgot that Goodwin's Law trumps Contumacious Corollary:

"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"

.

 

[Cowman]

You are right again.

Every-time I read about the Jews needing assault type rifles to defeat the nazis it makes me so angry.

Why can't the Jews understand that Adolf Hitler was the duly elected Fuhrer. And if he decided that national security required the Jews to be incinerated alive , by golly, that's what they deserved.

So in conclusion , Americans have the right to carry BB guns ....but nothing powerful enough to kill a stormtroopers. After all our bureaucrats are saints and angels.

.

Godwin's law.

Undermining yourself.

Ooooops , I totally forgot that Goodwin's Law trumps Contumacious Corollary:

"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"

.

Are you really fucking comparing firearms regulations, assault rifles in particular, to fucking Hitler and Nazi Germany?

You people are fucking ridiculous.

And yet you say you don't appeal to emotion. Give me a fucking break. That's all you try to appeal to.

 

[Dubya]

Exactly, it says nothing about specifying "arms". .

You are right again.

Every-time I read about the Jews needing assault type rifles to defeat the nazis it makes me so angry.

Why can't the Jews understand that Adolf Hitler was the duly elected Fuhrer. And if he decided that national security required the Jews to be incinerated alive , by golly, that's what they deserved.

So in conclusion , Americans have the right to carry BB guns ....but nothing powerful enough to kill a stormtroopers. After all our bureaucrats are saints and angels.

.

And the police will always be there in seconds. But who cares? The criminals all attack with pillows and pixie dust.

What are you bitching about, Nutter, you're the one who works so hard to arm the criminals? I guess you think arming criminals gives you the right to own whatever weapon you want. You support the NRA's firearms industry propaganda and spend your time on the internet trying to make sure the United States remains the murder capital of the industrialized world. It would be a shame if we dropped below 80% of the deaths by gun, wouldn't it?

 

[martybegan]

You are right again.

Every-time I read about the Jews needing assault type rifles to defeat the nazis it makes me so angry.

Why can't the Jews understand that Adolf Hitler was the duly elected Fuhrer. And if he decided that national security required the Jews to be incinerated alive , by golly, that's what they deserved.

So in conclusion , Americans have the right to carry BB guns ....but nothing powerful enough to kill a stormtroopers. After all our bureaucrats are saints and angels.

.

And the police will always be there in seconds. But who cares? The criminals all attack with pillows and pixie dust.

What are you bitching about, Nutter, you're the one who works so hard to arm the criminals? I guess you think arming criminals gives you the right to own whatever weapon you want. You support the NRA's firearms industry propaganda and spend your time on the internet trying to make sure the United States remains the murder capital of the industrialized world. It would be a shame if we dropped below 80% of the deaths by gun, wouldn't it?

Tell me how anything proposed by the gun grabbers will stop a determined criminal from getting a firearm. Last time I checked I haven't given any criminal a firearm, nor allowed them to do it.

All current proposals are feel good crap that will not stop bad people from getting guns.

 

[tjvh]

You are right again.

Every-time I read about the Jews needing assault type rifles to defeat the nazis it makes me so angry.

Why can't the Jews understand that Adolf Hitler was the duly elected Fuhrer. And if he decided that national security required the Jews to be incinerated alive , by golly, that's what they deserved.

So in conclusion , Americans have the right to carry BB guns ....but nothing powerful enough to kill a stormtroopers. After all our bureaucrats are saints and angels.

.

And the police will always be there in seconds. But who cares? The criminals all attack with pillows and pixie dust.

What are you bitching about, Nutter, you're the one who works so hard to arm the criminals? I guess you think arming criminals gives you the right to own whatever weapon you want. You support the NRA's firearms industry propaganda and spend your time on the internet trying to make sure the United States remains the murder capital of the industrialized world. It would be a shame if we dropped below 80% of the deaths by gun, wouldn't it?

What's it like living in fear all of the time? It must be very difficult for you... What was that? Someone with a gun is creeping around outside your front door...

 

[Contumacious]

Godwin's law.

Undermining yourself.

Ooooops , I totally forgot that Goodwin's Law trumps Contumacious Corollary:

"Those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it"

.

Are you really fucking comparing firearms regulations, assault rifles in particular, to fucking Hitler and Nazi Germany?

You people are fucking ridiculous.

And yet you say you don't appeal to emotion. Give me a fucking break. That's all you try to appeal to.

No sir, I am not. Our leaders are angels. Ask the Davidians .


.

 

[Dubya]

And the police will always be there in seconds. But who cares? The criminals all attack with pillows and pixie dust.

What are you bitching about, Nutter, you're the one who works so hard to arm the criminals? I guess you think arming criminals gives you the right to own whatever weapon you want. You support the NRA's firearms industry propaganda and spend your time on the internet trying to make sure the United States remains the murder capital of the industrialized world. It would be a shame if we dropped below 80% of the deaths by gun, wouldn't it?

Tell me how anything proposed by the gun grabbers will stop a determined criminal from getting a firearm. Last time I checked I haven't given any criminal a firearm, nor allowed them to do it.

All current proposals are feel good crap that will not stop bad people from getting guns.

Has there been legislation passed by Congress? Maybe if your state didn't have Nutters like you in it, they wouldn't have such laws. The way you act on this site, you aren't going to get any sympathy from me. You act so crazy, you're lucky they even allow you to have a gun.