Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[2aguy]

Proof that Corny doesn't care about human life at all. She cares about control over other people. More people die in automobiles but that's fine with her because of a litany of costly regulations (insurance, inspections, etc.).

And what an asinine list. Inspecting the automobiles does nothing to prevent deaths as it is the driver and not the car that causes deaths. Carrying insurance certainly does nothing to prevent deaths as it is the driver and not the car that causes deaths.

But all of those are costly regulations and that's what gets control freak Corny all frothy. How insignificant is your life Corny that you crave control over other people's lives? Get a job already. Volunteer. Find God. Do something other than sitting around on USMB seething over the fact that your fellow citizens have freedom and don't have to answer to you.

Liability insurance should be issued for each gun sold….a hefty 1,000,000 dollar “mayhem tax”…just like we have for cigarettes.

I'm sure the Criminals will make sure their policy is up to date.

And if they don’t…well…tack on another 5-10 years to their sentence. Meanwhile, it decreases the number of guns made (higher costs means fewer guns), it decreased the number of guns sold (higher prices mean fewer guns), and it increases the prosecutorial powers of the law.

Win-Win-Win.

Why. I see. You don't mind having your fellow citizens rounded up and thrown in prisons.

You commit a gun crime…you should go to prison. For a very long time too in my view. The cops have a hard enough job without there being this revolving door in jails and prison. Stick up a shop owner, you get caught, you get X number of years for the robbery. If you don’t have the liability insurance (it would be called something else but insurance to pay the victims is what I mean), bingo, another 5 years added on to it.

You have a problem keeping criminals in jail?

again....insurance is a Poll Tax which keeps the poor from owning guns.....owning guns is a Right.....

IF you want criminals who use guns to go to jail for a long time you are preaching to the wrong people......it is the pro 2nd Amendment people who keep telling nuts like you that our problem isn't normal people owning and carrying guns...but criminals with long criminal records who get caught commiting gun crimes and then they are let go....again and again and again...

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Proof that Corny doesn't care about human life at all. She cares about control over other people. More people die in automobiles but that's fine with her because of a litany of costly regulations (insurance, inspections, etc.).

And what an asinine list. Inspecting the automobiles does nothing to prevent deaths as it is the driver and not the car that causes deaths. Carrying insurance certainly does nothing to prevent deaths as it is the driver and not the car that causes deaths.

But all of those are costly regulations and that's what gets control freak Corny all frothy. How insignificant is your life Corny that you crave control over other people's lives? Get a job already. Volunteer. Find God. Do something other than sitting around on USMB seething over the fact that your fellow citizens have freedom and don't have to answer to you.

Liability insurance should be issued for each gun sold….a hefty 1,000,000 dollar “mayhem tax”…just like we have for cigarettes.

I'm sure the Criminals will make sure their policy is up to date.

And if they don’t…well…tack on another 5-10 years to their sentence. Meanwhile, it decreases the number of guns made (higher costs means fewer guns), it decreased the number of guns sold (higher prices mean fewer guns), and it increases the prosecutorial powers of the law.

Win-Win-Win.

Why. I see. You don't mind having your fellow citizens rounded up and thrown in prisons.

You commit a gun crime…you should go to prison. For a very long time too in my view. The cops have a hard enough job without there being this revolving door in jails and prison. Stick up a shop owner, you get caught, you get X number of years for the robbery. If you don’t have the liability insurance (it would be called something else but insurance to pay the victims is what I mean), bingo, another 5 years added on to it.

You have a problem keeping criminals in jail?

Oh no. I don' t mind Criminals in jail. I'd prefer a firing squad. Save the taxpayers some money.

Why should I have to insure my firearms.

My homeowners insurance handles the loss in the event someone can get into my house, alive, and get into my safe and get my arms.

 

[2aguy]

You're really going to try and float this nonsense? Really?

So you really believe the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect your right to bear a sword when it protects your right to own a gun? It says, Arms, not Firearms. Stop imposing an understanding which isn't there.

To figure out what Arms actually means, you have to go to court but good luck finding a court that says you have a right to a gun but not a sword?

There is a movement right now called Knife Rights fighting stupid knife laws in this country under the 2nd Amendment protections...swords would also be included ........

Nothing in the Constitution itself says you can't bear big fucking swords or big fucking knives.

And yet communities across the country prohibit them....when they are also covered by the 2nd Amendment.

Yes, they do because the Constitution say "A" and then society and the courts have to figure out just what in the hell does "A" actually mean? The Founders were not specific.

Yes...they were specific.....you morons pretend that you can't understand simple english.....they did not plan on that ........

 

[P@triot]

You commit a gun crime…you should go to prison. For a very long time too in my view. The cops have a hard enough job without there being this revolving door in jails and prison. Stick up a shop owner, you get caught, you get X number of years for the robbery. If you don’t have the liability insurance (it would be called something else but insurance to pay the victims is what I mean), bingo, another 5 years added on to it.

You have a problem keeping criminals in jail?

Amen sister!!! A rare moment of lucidity from you! The only thing I would say is that you should replace "gun crime" with "crime". Whether a gun is used or a knife is used, a crime is a crime.

Does this mean there is hope for you or was this just some sort of anomaly?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It unquestionably includes all firearms, and it always has.
What else matters, and why?

What matters is firearms are not the only arms. And they weren't even then so when Puddles says, according to the Constitution, that he has the right to bear arms, all arms, he's correct. That is what the Constitution actually says. What that means is something else entirely, something the courts and society have had to work out.
Don't impose an understanding that isn't there.

But, the understanding clearly -is- there.
The 2nd, unquestionably, protects the right to own and use firearms, and, just as unquestionably, does not protect the right to own and use nuclear weapons.

That is not at all what is says. The "understanding" is not there at all.

Sure it is -- the court has addressed the meaning of 'arms' in two separate decisions, one of which precedes the advent of nuclear weapons.

Right, the Courts, not the Constitution. Exactly my point and Puddles point, the Constitution says Arms, not what kind of arms. Is everyone on the same page now I hope?

And, legally, in the context of the 2nd, what does 'arms" mean?

 

[candycorn]

Liability insurance should be issued for each gun sold….a hefty 1,000,000 dollar “mayhem tax”…just like we have for cigarettes.

I'm sure the Criminals will make sure their policy is up to date.

And if they don’t…well…tack on another 5-10 years to their sentence. Meanwhile, it decreases the number of guns made (higher costs means fewer guns), it decreased the number of guns sold (higher prices mean fewer guns), and it increases the prosecutorial powers of the law.

Win-Win-Win.

Why. I see. You don't mind having your fellow citizens rounded up and thrown in prisons.

You commit a gun crime…you should go to prison. For a very long time too in my view. The cops have a hard enough job without there being this revolving door in jails and prison. Stick up a shop owner, you get caught, you get X number of years for the robbery. If you don’t have the liability insurance (it would be called something else but insurance to pay the victims is what I mean), bingo, another 5 years added on to it.

You have a problem keeping criminals in jail?

Oh no. I don' t mind Criminals in jail. I'd prefer a firing squad. Save the taxpayers some money.

Why should I have to insure my firearms.

My homeowners insurance handles the loss in the event someone can get into my house, alive, and get into my safe and get my arms.

The same way that you get taxed for cigarettes and have to have liability insurance for the car. It serves the greater good. We have a gun problem in this nation. This will, at least, help the victims. Sucks but we all pay for it.

 

[Jack4jill]

So you really believe the 2nd Amendment doesn't protect your right to bear a sword when it protects your right to own a gun? It says, Arms, not Firearms. Stop imposing an understanding which isn't there.

To figure out what Arms actually means, you have to go to court but good luck finding a court that says you have a right to a gun but not a sword?

There is a movement right now called Knife Rights fighting stupid knife laws in this country under the 2nd Amendment protections...swords would also be included ........

Nothing in the Constitution itself says you can't bear big fucking swords or big fucking knives.

And yet communities across the country prohibit them....when they are also covered by the 2nd Amendment.

Yes, they do because the Constitution say "A" and then society and the courts have to figure out just what in the hell does "A" actually mean? The Founders were not specific.

Yes...they were specific.....you morons pretend that you can't understand simple english.....they did not plan on that ........

If they were specifi they would have said what kind of arms, and they did not.

People, stop imposing an understanding that isn't there. The understanding of what "arms" means comes from the courts, not the Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

Yes, they do because the Constitution say "A" and then society and the courts have to figure out just what in the hell does "A" actually mean? The Founders were not specific.

The founders were very specific. You just don't like what they said so you try to pervert everything for your own selfish desires.

 

[candycorn]

You commit a gun crime…you should go to prison. For a very long time too in my view. The cops have a hard enough job without there being this revolving door in jails and prison. Stick up a shop owner, you get caught, you get X number of years for the robbery. If you don’t have the liability insurance (it would be called something else but insurance to pay the victims is what I mean), bingo, another 5 years added on to it.

You have a problem keeping criminals in jail?

Amen sister!!! A rare moment of lucidity from you! The only thing I would say is that you should replace "gun crime" with "crime". Whether a gun is used or a knife is used, a crime is a crime.

Does this mean there is hope for you or was this just some sort of anomaly?

I’ve been saying it for 6 months or so….

Still think you should be able to buy land-mines at Wal mart?

How about anti-tank weapons?

 

[Jack4jill]

What matters is firearms are not the only arms. And they weren't even then so when Puddles says, according to the Constitution, that he has the right to bear arms, all arms, he's correct. That is what the Constitution actually says. What that means is something else entirely, something the courts and society have had to work out.
Don't impose an understanding that isn't there.

But, the understanding clearly -is- there.
The 2nd, unquestionably, protects the right to own and use firearms, and, just as unquestionably, does not protect the right to own and use nuclear weapons.

That is not at all what is says. The "understanding" is not there at all.

Sure it is -- the court has addressed the meaning of 'arms' in two separate decisions, one of which precedes the advent of nuclear weapons.

Right, the Courts, not the Constitution. Exactly my point and Puddles point, the Constitution says Arms, not what kind of arms. Is everyone on the same page now I hope?

And, legally, in the context of the 2nd, what does 'arms" mean?

For that you have to ask the courts. The Constitution does - not - say.

 

[2aguy]

There is a movement right now called Knife Rights fighting stupid knife laws in this country under the 2nd Amendment protections...swords would also be included ........

Nothing in the Constitution itself says you can't bear big fucking swords or big fucking knives.

And yet communities across the country prohibit them....when they are also covered by the 2nd Amendment.

Yes, they do because the Constitution say "A" and then society and the courts have to figure out just what in the hell does "A" actually mean? The Founders were not specific.

Yes...they were specific.....you morons pretend that you can't understand simple english.....they did not plan on that ........

If they were specifi they would have said what kind of arms, and they did not.

People, stop imposing an understanding that isn't there. The understanding of what "arms" means comes from the courts, not the Constitution.

again......are you sure you aren't brain....this is the stupid way he argues......like a Troll, but with less intelligence.....

Has anyone seen brain and this guy in the same room together...?

 

[M14 Shooter]

[
We have a gun problem in this nation.

For every gun used to commit murder yesterday, 16,000,000 were not.
Your conclusion: We have a gun problem.

 

[2aguy]

I'm sure the Criminals will make sure their policy is up to date.

And if they don’t…well…tack on another 5-10 years to their sentence. Meanwhile, it decreases the number of guns made (higher costs means fewer guns), it decreased the number of guns sold (higher prices mean fewer guns), and it increases the prosecutorial powers of the law.

Win-Win-Win.

Why. I see. You don't mind having your fellow citizens rounded up and thrown in prisons.

You commit a gun crime…you should go to prison. For a very long time too in my view. The cops have a hard enough job without there being this revolving door in jails and prison. Stick up a shop owner, you get caught, you get X number of years for the robbery. If you don’t have the liability insurance (it would be called something else but insurance to pay the victims is what I mean), bingo, another 5 years added on to it.

You have a problem keeping criminals in jail?

Oh no. I don' t mind Criminals in jail. I'd prefer a firing squad. Save the taxpayers some money.

Why should I have to insure my firearms.

My homeowners insurance handles the loss in the event someone can get into my house, alive, and get into my safe and get my arms.

The same way that you get taxed for cigarettes and have to have liability insurance for the car. It serves the greater good. We have a gun problem in this nation. This will, at least, help the victims. Sucks but we all pay for it.

We don't have a gun problem in this country as the actual statistics show.....we have a violent criminal problem in tiny areas of our inner cities.....

And you can already be sued if you misuse a gun.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But, the understanding clearly -is- there.
The 2nd, unquestionably, protects the right to own and use firearms, and, just as unquestionably, does not protect the right to own and use nuclear weapons.

That is not at all what is says. The "understanding" is not there at all.

Sure it is -- the court has addressed the meaning of 'arms' in two separate decisions, one of which precedes the advent of nuclear weapons.

Right, the Courts, not the Constitution. Exactly my point and Puddles point, the Constitution says Arms, not what kind of arms. Is everyone on the same page now I hope?

And, legally, in the context of the 2nd, what does 'arms" mean?

For that you have to ask the courts. The Constitution does - not - say.

And, legally, how have the courts defined the term as used in the context of the 2nd?

 

[P@triot]

The same way that you get taxed for cigarettes and have to have liability insurance for the car. It serves the greater good. We have a gun problem in this nation. This will, at least, help the victims. Sucks but we all pay for it.

We don't have a gun problem. We have a criminal problem (of which you have no desire to address) and we have an automobile problem (of which you have no desire to address). Why? Because you were conditioned to fear an inanimate object (the gun), conditioned to love a considerably more dangerous object (the automobile), and conditioned to defend the most dangerous object (the criminal) - all for the agenda of a disturbed and failed ideology.

 

[Jack4jill]

[
We have a gun problem in this nation.

For every gun used to commit murder yesterday, 16,000,000 were not.
Your conclusion: We have a gun problem.

It's the body-count, not the gun-count that matters.

 

[ChrisL]

They don't understand that criminals are not going to buy "insurance" or "register" their guns. Lol.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

I'm sure the Criminals will make sure their policy is up to date.

And if they don’t…well…tack on another 5-10 years to their sentence. Meanwhile, it decreases the number of guns made (higher costs means fewer guns), it decreased the number of guns sold (higher prices mean fewer guns), and it increases the prosecutorial powers of the law.

Win-Win-Win.

Why. I see. You don't mind having your fellow citizens rounded up and thrown in prisons.

You commit a gun crime…you should go to prison. For a very long time too in my view. The cops have a hard enough job without there being this revolving door in jails and prison. Stick up a shop owner, you get caught, you get X number of years for the robbery. If you don’t have the liability insurance (it would be called something else but insurance to pay the victims is what I mean), bingo, another 5 years added on to it.

You have a problem keeping criminals in jail?

Oh no. I don' t mind Criminals in jail. I'd prefer a firing squad. Save the taxpayers some money.

Why should I have to insure my firearms.

My homeowners insurance handles the loss in the event someone can get into my house, alive, and get into my safe and get my arms.

The same way that you get taxed for cigarettes and have to have liability insurance for the car. It serves the greater good. We have a gun problem in this nation. This will, at least, help the victims. Sucks but we all pay for it.

You don't own firearms. That is an unnecessary tax on me. Nope. A firing squad will fix this problem very quickly.

I find it to be a reasonable remedy. A serious deterrent to those who want to use firearms in the commission of a crime.

 

[candycorn]

The same way that you get taxed for cigarettes and have to have liability insurance for the car. It serves the greater good. We have a gun problem in this nation. This will, at least, help the victims. Sucks but we all pay for it.

We don't have a gun problem. We have a criminal problem (of which you have no desire to address) and we have an automobile problem (of which you have no desire to address). Why? Because you were conditioned to fear an inanimate object (the gun), conditioned to love a considerably more dangerous object (the automobile), and conditioned to defend the most dangerous object (the criminal) - all for the agenda of a disturbed and failed ideology.

I guess denial is not just a river in Egypt after all.

 

[candycorn]

They don't understand that criminals are not going to buy "insurance" or "register" their guns. Lol.

No but when you don’t…you open yourself up to a longer prison sentence. In a case like Adam Lanza, the liability insurance compensates the 26 victims.