Should our Constitution's 2nd Amendment be amended ... ?

[charwin95]

There is no such thing as a "private dealer". It's an oxymoron.
A dealer is doing business to make a profit.
Now I'm bored with you.
Permanent Ignore

Who cares shit head. Ignore is for pussies. If you can't stand the brutality of Internet then. Get the fuck out here.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is no such thing as a "private dealer". It's an oxymoron.
A dealer is doing business to make a profit.
Now I'm bored with you.
Permanent Ignore

Who cares shit head. Ignore is for pussies. If you can't stand the brutality of Internet then. Get the fuck out here.

Here's a challenge you will never meet:
-Define said loophole.
-Explain how it exists only at gun shows.
-Explain how it legally allows you to avoid the federal laws requiring background checks.

 

[charwin95]

Truth is there is a loophole that you deny the existence.

Here's a challenge you will never meet:
-Define said loophole.
-Explain how it exists only at gun shows.
-Explain how it legally allows you to avoid the federal laws requiring background checks.

Nope... The truth is you deny the existence of a loophole at gun show. And you can defend however you want. It exist. Period.

 

[dannyboys]

There is no such thing as a "private dealer". It's an oxymoron.
A dealer is doing business to make a profit.
Now I'm bored with you.
Permanent Ignore

Who cares shit head. Ignore is for pussies. If you can't stand the brutality of Internet then. Get the fuck out here.

"Out here"? Jesus you are really fucking dumb.
Go to a 'rag head' forum where simple english is not required.
All you are doing here is making a fool of yourself.

 

[charwin95]

There is no such thing as a "private dealer". It's an oxymoron.
A dealer is doing business to make a profit.
Now I'm bored with you.
Permanent Ignore

Who cares shit head. Ignore is for pussies. If you can't stand the brutality of Internet then. Get the fuck out here.

"Out here"? Jesus you are really fucking dumb.
Go to a 'rag head' forum where simple english is not required.
All you are doing here is making a fool of yourself.

Wipe the foaming off your mouth asshole. I thought you put me in your ignore list.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Truth is there is a loophole that you deny the existence.

Here's a challenge you will never meet:
-Define said loophole.
-Explain how it exists only at gun shows.
-Explain how it legally allows you to avoid the federal laws requiring background checks.

Nope... The truth is you deny the existence of a loophole at gun show. And you can defend however you want. It exist. Period.

You insist that it exists,.
You cannot explain how it exists.
Given your inability to show that it exists, why do you insist that it exists?

 

[charwin95]

Truth is there is a loophole that you deny the existence.

Here's a challenge you will never meet:
-Define said loophole.
-Explain how it exists only at gun shows.
-Explain how it legally allows you to avoid the federal laws requiring background checks.

Nope... The truth is you deny the existence of a loophole at gun show. And you can defend however you want. It exist. Period.

You insist that it exists,.
You cannot explain how it exists.
Given your inability to show that it exists, why do you insist that it exists?

I don't have to explain to you anything.... Because I proved it myself and you can call it however you want.,

 

[M14 Shooter]

Truth is there is a loophole that you deny the existence.

Here's a challenge you will never meet:
-Define said loophole.
-Explain how it exists only at gun shows.
-Explain how it legally allows you to avoid the federal laws requiring background checks.

Nope... The truth is you deny the existence of a loophole at gun show. And you can defend however you want. It exist. Period.

You insist that it exists,.
You cannot explain how it exists.
Given your inability to show that it exists, why do you insist that it exists?

I don't have to explain to you anything.... Because I proved it myself and you can call it however you want.,

You refuse to understand that your supposed experience at a gun show does not prove it.
So, again:
Given your inability to show that it exists, why do you insist that it exists?

 

[charwin95]

Truth is there is a loophole that you deny the existence.

Here's a challenge you will never meet:
-Define said loophole.
-Explain how it exists only at gun shows.
-Explain how it legally allows you to avoid the federal laws requiring background checks.

Nope... The truth is you deny the existence of a loophole at gun show. And you can defend however you want. It exist. Period.

You insist that it exists,.
You cannot explain how it exists.
Given your inability to show that it exists, why do you insist that it exists?

I don't have to explain to you anything.... Because I proved it myself and you can call it however you want.,

You refuse to understand that your supposed experience at a gun show does not prove it.
So, again:
Given your inability to show that it exists, why do you insist that it exists?

Explain what I'd experienced?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Here's a challenge you will never meet:
-Define said loophole.
-Explain how it exists only at gun shows.
-Explain how it legally allows you to avoid the federal laws requiring background checks.

Nope... The truth is you deny the existence of a loophole at gun show. And you can defend however you want. It exist. Period.

You insist that it exists,.
You cannot explain how it exists.
Given your inability to show that it exists, why do you insist that it exists?

I don't have to explain to you anything.... Because I proved it myself and you can call it however you want.,

You refuse to understand that your supposed experience at a gun show does not prove it.
So, again:
Given your inability to show that it exists, why do you insist that it exists?

Explain what I'd experienced?

I did.
Your supposed experience is not an example of a way to legally get around the requirements of the law. and is therefore not an example of a loophole in said law.

 

[dannyboys]

Truth is there is a loophole that you deny the existence.

Here's a challenge you will never meet:
-Define said loophole.
-Explain how it exists only at gun shows.
-Explain how it legally allows you to avoid the federal laws requiring background checks.

Nope... The truth is you deny the existence of a loophole at gun show. And you can defend however you want. It exist. Period.

You insist that it exists,.
You cannot explain how it exists.
Given your inability to show that it exists, why do you insist that it exists?

I don't have to explain to you anything.... Because I proved it myself and you can call it however you want.,

I'll it call bullshit.
You can't even string two fucking words together properly. And you are going to claim you understand the difference between a "private dealer" (which does not exist) and a licensed dealer.
God you're a 'nagli'.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Truth is there is a loophole that you deny the existence.

Here's a challenge you will never meet:
-Define said loophole.
-Explain how it exists only at gun shows.
-Explain how it legally allows you to avoid the federal laws requiring background checks.

Nope... The truth is you deny the existence of a loophole at gun show. And you can defend however you want. It exist. Period.

You insist that it exists,.
You cannot explain how it exists.
Given your inability to show that it exists, why do you insist that it exists?

I don't have to explain to you anything.... Because I proved it myself and you can call it however you want.,

I'll it call bullshit.
You can't even string two fucking words together properly. And you are going to claim you understand the difference between a "private dealer" (which does not exist) and a licensed dealer.
God you're a 'nagli'.

Under federal law, "dealer" has a very specific meaning -- the law uses terms like "engaged in the business of". "retail" and "wholesale"; specifically. this also means that the gun are owned by the business, not the individual.
None of this applies to a private seller.

 

[Oliver King]

2nd amendment is so obsolete... That's strange we still stick to those two century old definitions of democracy.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Do Righties here know how much time it took to load a musket with just one bullet?

Those were the weapons of the day that the Constitution guaranteed a civilian could have and bear.

So, why are Conservatives advocating that we stick with the old time muskets? Hmmmm?

Where is the right restricted only to weapons of that time? Point out the passage.

Now, you take a minute an think about that.
Had our founding fathers known that 200 years later, we would possess weapons of mass destruction, would they have worded the 2nd amendment the way they did?

Sure looks as if context is not your thing.

The 2nd amendment does not cover weapons of mass destruction it covers personal arms carried and maintained by an individual. If you are arguing that since that was muskets when it was written and it should still only be muskets then you have no right to a computer typewriter or modern printing press. No phones, no TV no radio, etc etc.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Where is the right restricted only to weapons of that time? Point out the passage.

Now, you take a minute an think about that.
Had our founding fathers known that 200 years later, we would possess weapons of mass destruction, would they have worded the 2nd amendment the way they did?

Sure looks as if context is not your thing.

Your speculations are quite speculative.

Do you know how long it took to reload a musket in 1791?

Nothing could be more irrelevant to this issue.

False. It is VERY relevant.

Only, RWNJs like you do not have enough courage to answer the question, mostly because you are pussies who run away when confronted with hard facts.

A musket from circa 1791 takes about 40 seconds to 1 minute in time to load and fire with one single projectile:



Had our forefathers known that one day, people could have semi-automatic weapons that can fire 40 to 60 RPM (some fire up to 800 RPM), they would likely have worded the amendment differently.

The purpose of the 2nd was to ensure the people had access to and could own weapons of a personal nature belonging to a militia or army. That means semi automatic rifles that you retards call assault weapons because they LOOK scary but fire no faster then any semiautomatic hunting rifle.

As for claiming because a musket was what was current in the beginning and that is all the amendment deals with then the Government has the right to prevent modern printing presses, phones, tvs, radios, computers, etc etc.

 

[EverCurious]

All that'll happen is that "private citizens" won't be able to sell their guns in the gun show, so instead they'll be out in the parking lot or on Craigslist. Closing the so-called "loophole" is a useless gesture to get votes from... easily swayed voters. ~shrug~

 

[JimBowie1958]

Sanders is just borrowing wornout phrases and cliches

No different than any other anti-gun loon.

Have you read Sanders position on gun issues?
Bernie Sanders on Gun Control
His primary flaws, IMO, are that he supports bans on 'assault weapons' and magazines over 10 round capacity, both of which are simplistic and ineffective when criminals are concerned. Existing assault weapons and high capacity magazines are always grandfathered in and so they never truly leave circulation.

For a Democrat that isn't half bad. I doubt the NRA will devote large sums to defeating Sanders and will await for his administration and then shift to opposing his legislation.

I'm sure the NRA will oppose Sanders in the general election.

I'm sure they will, but will they put serious capital into it like they would OMalley or Clinton?

 

[danielpalos]

2nd amendment is so obsolete... That's strange we still stick to those two century old definitions of democracy.

it isn't a Second Amendment issue; rights in acquiring and possessing private property including in the class called Arms, is secured in State Constitutions.

 

[danielpalos]

Do Righties here know how much time it took to load a musket with just one bullet?

Those were the weapons of the day that the Constitution guaranteed a civilian could have and bear.

So, why are Conservatives advocating that we stick with the old time muskets? Hmmmm?

Where is the right restricted only to weapons of that time? Point out the passage.

Now, you take a minute an think about that.
Had our founding fathers known that 200 years later, we would possess weapons of mass destruction, would they have worded the 2nd amendment the way they did?

Sure looks as if context is not your thing.

The 2nd amendment does not cover weapons of mass destruction it covers personal arms carried and maintained by an individual. If you are arguing that since that was muskets when it was written and it should still only be muskets then you have no right to a computer typewriter or modern printing press. No phones, no TV no radio, etc etc.

Now, you take a minute an think about that.
Had our founding fathers known that 200 years later, we would possess weapons of mass destruction, would they have worded the 2nd amendment the way they did?

Sure looks as if context is not your thing.

Your speculations are quite speculative.

Do you know how long it took to reload a musket in 1791?

Nothing could be more irrelevant to this issue.

False. It is VERY relevant.

Only, RWNJs like you do not have enough courage to answer the question, mostly because you are pussies who run away when confronted with hard facts.

A musket from circa 1791 takes about 40 seconds to 1 minute in time to load and fire with one single projectile:



Had our forefathers known that one day, people could have semi-automatic weapons that can fire 40 to 60 RPM (some fire up to 800 RPM), they would likely have worded the amendment differently.

The purpose of the 2nd was to ensure the people had access to and could own weapons of a personal nature belonging to a militia or army. That means semi automatic rifles that you retards call assault weapons because they LOOK scary but fire no faster then any semiautomatic hunting rifle.

As for claiming because a musket was what was current in the beginning and that is all the amendment deals with then the Government has the right to prevent modern printing presses, phones, tvs, radios, computers, etc etc.

Our Second Article of Amendment is only about one thing; and that Intent and that Purpose is in the first (sergeant) clause.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

2nd amendment is so obsolete... That's strange we still stick to those two century old definitions of democracy.

There is a process to repeal it.

Knock yourself out.