SO GLAD the Newtown Parents Are Coming Forward

[Geaux4it]

Since Joe has failed to cogently respond to coherent arguments on the subject, maybe a more dumbed down version will suffice:

Me like flow charts

-Geaux

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

And that would of stopped what?

-Geaux

Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, Cho.

All of whom were crazy than batshit, and they were still able to get guns.

Man, how many times do we have to post the links to show you that background checks would of NOT stopped Sandy Hook.

Even Mr Frankenstein said so...

Feinstein: Background checks would not have prevented Sandy Hook shooting | WashingtonExaminer.com

-Geaux

Has anyone ever read federal or state statutes for gun control? Try it sometime and note how many times the words and phrases like "with the exception of" preface other existing statutes, so that so-called law is completely neutered.

Fact: It's a federal crime to create or own a bomb, grenade, rocket-propelled weapon or land mine. Why? Because they are obviously military-designed and manufactured weapons for mass killing.

So boys, it make look like a gun and sound like a gun, but if an AR-15 or any weapon like it has the same effect as any of the items mentioned above and has the capacity to say, wound or kill 70 people in a Colorado theatre in less than 5 minutes, then there's nothing wrong with the same federal law being imposed.

Screw background checks. Let the only people who can own them also be fucking deployed to war zones and use them to either protect themselves or free someone else from being attacked.

 

[squeeze berry]

Not for much longer. We are sick of your shit.

for the 3rd time, wanna bet?

You guys are already done. The NRA is shitting bricks, waiting for the next mass shooting.

1. the NRA had to hire temp help to process all the new membership applications

2. if you are that cocksure, you would bet

you are yellow

 

[TemplarKormac]

Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, Cho.

All of whom were crazy than batshit, and they were still able to get guns.

Man, how many times do we have to post the links to show you that background checks would of NOT stopped Sandy Hook.

Even Mr Frankenstein said so...

Feinstein: Background checks would not have prevented Sandy Hook shooting | WashingtonExaminer.com

-Geaux

Has anyone ever read federal or state statutes for gun control? Try it sometime and note how many times the words and phrases like "with the exception of" preface other existing statutes, so that so-called law is completely neutered.

Fact: It's a federal crime to create or own a bomb, grenade, rocket-propelled weapon or land mine. Why? Because they are obviously military-designed and manufactured weapons for mass killing.

So boys, it make look like a gun and sound like a gun, but if an AR-15 or any weapon like it has the same effect as any of the items mentioned above and has the capacity to say, wound or kill 70 people in a Colorado theatre in less than 5 minutes, then there's nothing wrong with the same federal law being imposed.

Screw background checks. Let the only people who can own them also be fucking deployed to war zones and use them to either protect themselves or free someone else from being attacked.

I cited two of them, if you had bothered to read through the posts. Dimwit.

The rest of your post is malinformed.

 

[Geaux4it]

Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, Cho.

All of whom were crazy than batshit, and they were still able to get guns.

Man, how many times do we have to post the links to show you that background checks would of NOT stopped Sandy Hook.

Even Mr Frankenstein said so...

Feinstein: Background checks would not have prevented Sandy Hook shooting | WashingtonExaminer.com

-Geaux

Has anyone ever read federal or state statutes for gun control? Try it sometime and note how many times the words and phrases like "with the exception of" preface other existing statutes, so that so-called law is completely neutered.

Fact: It's a federal crime to create or own a bomb, grenade, rocket-propelled weapon or land mine. Why? Because they are obviously military-designed and manufactured weapons for mass killing.

So boys, it make look like a gun and sound like a gun, but if an AR-15 or any weapon like it has the same effect as any of the items mentioned above and has the capacity to say, wound or kill 70 people in a Colorado theatre in less than 5 minutes, then there's nothing wrong with the same federal law being imposed.

Screw background checks. Let the only people who can own them also be fucking deployed to war zones and use them to either protect themselves or free someone else from being attacked.

The choice of AR-15 to vilify is futile

if you ban that firearm you have to ban pistols too

Not going to happen

EDIT- If law abiding citizens had been armed in the theater lives would have been saved

-Geaux

 

[TemplarKormac]

Since Joe has failed to cogently respond to coherent arguments on the subject, maybe a more dumbed down version will suffice:

Me like flow charts

-Geaux

Indeed. Simple and succinct. Less headaches.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Loughner, Holmes, Lanza, Cho.

All of whom were crazy than batshit, and they were still able to get guns.

Man, how many times do we have to post the links to show you that background checks would of NOT stopped Sandy Hook.

Even Mr Frankenstein said so...

Feinstein: Background checks would not have prevented Sandy Hook shooting | WashingtonExaminer.com

-Geaux

Has anyone ever read federal or state statutes for gun control? Try it sometime and note how many times the words and phrases like "with the exception of" preface other existing statutes, so that so-called law is completely neutered.

Fact: It's a federal crime to create or own a bomb, grenade, rocket-propelled weapon or land mine. Why? Because they are obviously military-designed and manufactured weapons for mass killing.

So boys, it make look like a gun and sound like a gun, but if an AR-15 or any weapon like it has the same effect as any of the items mentioned above and has the capacity to say, wound or kill 70 people in a Colorado theatre in less than 5 minutes, then there's nothing wrong with the same federal law being imposed.

Screw background checks. Let the only people who can own them also be fucking deployed to war zones and use them to either protect themselves or free someone else from being attacked.

The 2nd amendment SPECIFICALLY protects military type firearms. As ruled in 39 and supported in every case since dealing with firearms.
The items you list are explosives or fired with high explosives, not considered firearms for the purpose of the 2nd as codified by US law. By the way one can probably own them with the appropriate fee, background check and permit.

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Since Joe has failed to cogently respond to coherent arguments on the subject, maybe a more dumbed down version will suffice:

Me like flow charts

-Geaux

That chart is somewhat incoherent but no one is disputing your right to own a gun to protect your life. You just don't need one that fires 30 rounds that go 1000 feet.

Just think, if you miss you could hit your neighbor's house, break out every window and maybe even kill their dog while your burglar makes his getaway. Then you'll have a lawsuit on your hands that will drive you into bankruptcy. Good luck, ya'll.

 

[Geaux4it]

Since Joe has failed to cogently respond to coherent arguments on the subject, maybe a more dumbed down version will suffice:

Me like flow charts

-Geaux

That chart is somewhat incoherent but no one is disputing your right to own a gun to protect your life. You just don't need one that fires 30 rounds that go 1000 feet.

Just think, if you miss you could hit your neighbor's house, break out every window and maybe even kill their dog while your burglar makes his getaway. Then you'll have a lawsuit on your hands that will drive you into bankruptcy. Good luck, ya'll.

Thanks for letting me know where you are coming from...

-Geaux

 

[TemplarKormac]

Since Joe has failed to cogently respond to coherent arguments on the subject, maybe a more dumbed down version will suffice:

Me like flow charts

-Geaux

That chart is somewhat incoherent but no one is disputing your right to own a gun to protect your life. You just don't need one that fires 30 rounds that go 1000 feet.

Just think, if you miss you could hit your neighbor's house, break out every window and maybe even kill their dog while your burglar makes his getaway. Then you'll have a lawsuit on your hands that will drive you into bankruptcy. Good luck, ya'll.

Oh, geez, then the rationales come. It gets more convoluted the more you try to rationalize gun control. That is why we take marksmanship classes you idiot.

 

[Geaux4it]

BTW- The guys at Columbine used 10 round magazines since 30 were illegal.

Same outcome

-Geaux

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

Man, how many times do we have to post the links to show you that background checks would of NOT stopped Sandy Hook.

Even Mr Frankenstein said so...

Feinstein: Background checks would not have prevented Sandy Hook shooting | WashingtonExaminer.com

-Geaux

Has anyone ever read federal or state statutes for gun control? Try it sometime and note how many times the words and phrases like "with the exception of" preface other existing statutes, so that so-called law is completely neutered.

Fact: It's a federal crime to create or own a bomb, grenade, rocket-propelled weapon or land mine. Why? Because they are obviously military-designed and manufactured weapons for mass killing.

So boys, it make look like a gun and sound like a gun, but if an AR-15 or any weapon like it has the same effect as any of the items mentioned above and has the capacity to say, wound or kill 70 people in a Colorado theatre in less than 5 minutes, then there's nothing wrong with the same federal law being imposed.

Screw background checks. Let the only people who can own them also be fucking deployed to war zones and use them to either protect themselves or free someone else from being attacked.

The 2nd amendment SPECIFICALLY protects military type firearms. .

This is what the 2nd Amendment was referring :This is an 18th century weapon of war that was required to be owned by the "well regulated militia"

As Thomas Jefferson said, ""I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. "

 

[NoTeaPartyPleez]

BTW- The guys at Columbine used 10 round magazines since 30 were illegal.

Same outcome

-Geaux

Oh, that changes everything, doesn't it? ANd an 18-year-old girl bought those guns for them too. Thanks to the gun laws in Colorado.

 

[Geaux4it]

Has anyone ever read federal or state statutes for gun control? Try it sometime and note how many times the words and phrases like "with the exception of" preface other existing statutes, so that so-called law is completely neutered.

Fact: It's a federal crime to create or own a bomb, grenade, rocket-propelled weapon or land mine. Why? Because they are obviously military-designed and manufactured weapons for mass killing.

So boys, it make look like a gun and sound like a gun, but if an AR-15 or any weapon like it has the same effect as any of the items mentioned above and has the capacity to say, wound or kill 70 people in a Colorado theatre in less than 5 minutes, then there's nothing wrong with the same federal law being imposed.

Screw background checks. Let the only people who can own them also be fucking deployed to war zones and use them to either protect themselves or free someone else from being attacked.

The 2nd amendment SPECIFICALLY protects military type firearms. .

This is what the 2nd Amendment was referring :This is an 18th century weapon of war that was required to be owned by the "well regulated militia"

As Thomas Jefferson said, ""I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. "

No. If they wanted it specific they would of said right to bare muskets.

Guess we never should of evolved beyond light signals or let the 1st Amendment be applicable to PC's et al

-Geaux

 

[Geaux4it]

What we need to be reminded here is the anti- gun crowds protection of free speech under the 1st Amendment, examples being the debates in this thread, are guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment

-Geaux

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Has anyone ever read federal or state statutes for gun control? Try it sometime and note how many times the words and phrases like "with the exception of" preface other existing statutes, so that so-called law is completely neutered.

Fact: It's a federal crime to create or own a bomb, grenade, rocket-propelled weapon or land mine. Why? Because they are obviously military-designed and manufactured weapons for mass killing.

So boys, it make look like a gun and sound like a gun, but if an AR-15 or any weapon like it has the same effect as any of the items mentioned above and has the capacity to say, wound or kill 70 people in a Colorado theatre in less than 5 minutes, then there's nothing wrong with the same federal law being imposed.

Screw background checks. Let the only people who can own them also be fucking deployed to war zones and use them to either protect themselves or free someone else from being attacked.

The 2nd amendment SPECIFICALLY protects military type firearms. .

This is what the 2nd Amendment was referring :This is an 18th century weapon of war that was required to be owned by the "well regulated militia"

As Thomas Jefferson said, ""I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. "

So the 1st Amendment only applies to pen and paper and old style printing presses? How about the 4th? All those new ways to spy on us are legal then right?

 

[Plasmaball]

The 2nd amendment SPECIFICALLY protects military type firearms. .

This is what the 2nd Amendment was referring :This is an 18th century weapon of war that was required to be owned by the "well regulated militia"

As Thomas Jefferson said, ""I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but laws and institutions must go hand in hand with the progress of the human mind. As that becomes more developed, more enlightened, as new discoveries are made, new truths discovered and manners and opinions change, with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times. "

So the 1st Amendment only applies to pen and paper and old style printing presses? How about the 4th? All those new ways to spy on us are legal then right?

The first does not cover everything. See fire in a crowd or public schools. The 2nd isnt a blanket either where anything regarding guns if off limits. People like you are not rational when it comes to these things. You should be basically ignored.

 

[JoeB131]

Why do I have to keep repeating that background checks are the law of the land and have been for decades? There is absolutely NO EVIDENCE that private sales lead TO GUN CRIMES, NONE NADA, zero.

.

That's like saying we didn't need to improve Airport security after 9/11 because, Gosh Darnit, we had a security checkpoint and Mohammed Atta cleared it.

If these guys got guns, then the background checks are inadequate.

 

[JoeB131]

What we need to be reminded here is the anti- gun crowds protection of free speech under the 1st Amendment, examples being the debates in this thread, are guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment

-Geaux

The ONLY thing garunteed by current MISREADINGS of the 2nd Amendment is that kids are going to die because crazy people can get guns too easily.

Every other industrial democray bans private gun ownership, and they have as much or more freedom of speech than we do.

 

[JoeB131]

BTW- The guys at Columbine used 10 round magazines since 30 were illegal.

Same outcome

-Geaux

30 round clips, they'd have killed more of their classmates.