The 2nd Amendment for dumbocrats

[bigrebnc1775]

The point is, instead of having common sense gun laws- which would mean treating guns the way we treat cars

Cars: Not a constitutional right, kills more people than guns every single year, and JoeB. believes everyone should have unimpeded access to them.

Guns: A constitutional right, has a long history of saving lives, and JoeB. believes they should be banned or heavily restricted.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, this really is the "logic" of a self-admitted communist

Guy, to own a car, you have to be license, registered, insured, take it in for regular emissions testing, required to comply with dozens of safety regulations. And unfortunately, because we don't invest in public transportation, we need them.

Guns- Most people don't need them, and they don't do any good in the hands of civilians.

Guy, to own a car, you have to be license, registered, insured, take it in for regular emissions testing, required to comply with dozens of safety regulations. And unfortunately, because we don't invest in public transportation, we need them.

No you don't
\

Guy, to own a car, you have to be license, registered, insured, take it in for regular emissions testing, required to comply with dozens of safety regulations. And unfortunately, because we don't invest in public transportation, we need them.

Go to hell you cock sucking bitch no one needs you why don't you do the world a favor?

 

[JoeB131]

BTW, I asked you a question regarding your Avatar when I had less than 20 post to my name on this board... you never answered. Is that Dr. Who?

Yes, that's the Third Doctor, Jon Pertwee. I had William Hartnell up in January and Patrick Troughton in Febuary. I'll finish the progression off in November with Matt Smith.

And frankly, I don't think we should be letting crazy people mow down children in schools with military grade weapons because 200 years ago, some slave-raper didn't want to pay his fair share of taxes.

Finally... the Slave raper bit? You did not fall for that Bogus theory did you Joe?

Not a bogus theory at all. Thomas Jefferson raped Sally Hemmings. It wasn't consensual because she was his property.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

BTW, I asked you a question regarding your Avatar when I had less than 20 post to my name on this board... you never answered. Is that Dr. Who?

Yes, that's the Third Doctor, Jon Pertwee. I had William Hartnell up in January and Patrick Troughton in Febuary. I'll finish the progression off in November with Matt Smith.

And frankly, I don't think we should be letting crazy people mow down children in schools with military grade weapons because 200 years ago, some slave-raper didn't want to pay his fair share of taxes.

Finally... the Slave raper bit? You did not fall for that Bogus theory did you Joe?

Not a bogus theory at all. Thomas Jefferson raped Sally Hemmings. It wasn't consensual because she was his property.

If she wasn't restricted from owning a gun she would never have been raped, why do you support disarming women so they will be victims?

 

[JoeB131]

[

If she wasn't restricted from owning a gun she would never have been raped, why do you support disarming women so they will be victims?

Yeah, I'm sure if this black woman shot a rich guy who owned her, the legal system of 1787 would have been TOTALLY understanding of her plight.

Right after they strunger her up from the nearest tree.

 

[jon_berzerk]

The point is, instead of having common sense gun laws- which would mean treating guns the way we treat cars

Cars: Not a constitutional right, kills more people than guns every single year, and JoeB. believes everyone should have unimpeded access to them.

Guns: A constitutional right, has a long history of saving lives, and JoeB. believes they should be banned or heavily restricted.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, this really is the "logic" of a self-admitted communist

Guy, to own a car, you have to be license, registered, insured, take it in for regular emissions testing, required to comply with dozens of safety regulations. And unfortunately, because we don't invest in public transportation, we need them.

you dont need a license it does not have to be registered or insured none of it

you are fulla bs

 

[JoeB131]

[

you dont need a license it does not have to be registered or insured none of it

you are fulla bs

Right.

So someone is going to chuck out thousands of dollars for a car and never drive it?

That's pretty much the only way you can avoid all the rules I've listed. And I'm still not sure about the emissions thingee.

 

[jon_berzerk]

[

you dont need a license it does not have to be registered or insured none of it

you are fulla bs

Right.

So someone is going to chuck out thousands of dollars for a car and never drive it?

That's pretty much the only way you can avoid all the rules I've listed. And I'm still not sure about the emissions thingee.

maybe maybe not fact is the federal government does not force anyone

to do all those things to simply own one

 

[legaleagle_45]

BTW, I asked you a question regarding your Avatar when I had less than 20 post to my name on this board... you never answered. Is that Dr. Who?

Yes, that's the Third Doctor, Jon Pertwee. I had William Hartnell up in January and Patrick Troughton in Febuary. I'll finish the progression off in November with Matt Smith. .

I thought so, loved Dr Who in my younger days.

[Not a bogus theory at all. Thomas Jefferson raped Sally Hemmings. It wasn't consensual because she was his property.

Ahh, then you are not familiar with the Bogus theory? LOL Bogus is capitalized because it refers to a person with the unfortunate last name of Bogus. Carl T. Bogus.

He wrote a law review article in 1999 entitled "The Hidden History of the 2nd Amend". It was quickly discredited for a variety of reasons and was rejected by all 9 members of SCOTUS in Heller. I can explain in detail if you wish, but it makes little sense to do so if you are unfamiliar with the Bogus theory in the first place. In any event, Tom Hartmann resurrected the Bogus theory a few months ago and unfortunately a lot of misinformed people now think this is the gospel truth.... and Carl T. Bogus? From his CV:

BOARD AND ADVISORY PANEL MEMBERSHIPS
VIOLENCE POLICY CENTER, Washington, DC, National Advisory Panel, 1993-Present.
HANDGUN CONTROL, INC., Washington, DC, Board of Gov., 1992-93, Board of Directors, 1987-89.
THE CENTER TO PREVENT HANDGUN VIOLENCE, Washington, DC, Board of Directors, 1989-92.

Jefferson had nothing to do with the drafting of the 2nd Amend. At all relevant times he was in Paris... raping Sally Hemmings.

 

[P@triot]

And the laws ARE going to change..

For the first time in USMB history, JoeB. is right. Unfortunately for him, it's the exact opposite of what he wishes was reality.

The laws, they are indeed a changing dumb-ass....

An Illinois court has ruled that the Second Amendment means what it says and has ordered the state legislature to adopt a law by June that lets citizens bear arms in self-defense, not just keep them.

]

California, Colorado and New York have passed tough new gun restictions...

here's the problem, guy, you gun nuts are in the minority.

All of which will be over ruled just as Washington D.C. and Illinois have been!

And we are the majority - hence the reason you are the sole individual nutter here arguing with a bunch of people who are crushing you with facts.

 

[P@triot]

The point is, instead of having common sense gun laws- which would mean treating guns the way we treat cars

Cars: Not a constitutional right, kills more people than guns every single year, and JoeB. believes everyone should have unimpeded access to them.

Guns: A constitutional right, has a long history of saving lives, and JoeB. believes they should be banned or heavily restricted.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, this really is the "logic" of a self-admitted communist

Guy, to own a car, you have to be license, registered, insured, take it in for regular emissions testing, required to comply with dozens of safety regulations. And unfortunately, because we don't invest in public transportation, we need them.

Guns- Most people don't need them, and they don't do any good in the hands of civilians.

And your nonsensical drivel doesn't change any of the FACTS above.

Cars kill more humans every year than guns. So what difference does it make that you have to take it for emissions?

Clearly it's not about saving lives or you would be much more upset about automobiles.

 

[JoeB131]

[

All of which will be over ruled just as Washington D.C. and Illinois have been!

And we are the majority - hence the reason you are the sole individual nutter here arguing with a bunch of people who are crushing you with facts.

As I've said many time, the best argument for gun control is to let the gun nuts like yourself talk.

And if you really think Roberts adn Kennedy are going to strike down any more gun laws after Newton, you are delusional.

 

[legaleagle_45]

So someone is going to chuck out thousands of dollars for a car and never drive it?

That's pretty much the only way you can avoid all the rules I've listed. And I'm still not sure about the emissions thingee.

Incorrect Joe. Many vehicles are driven solely on private property and are exempt from licensing and registration laws for that reason. The primary application is to farm vehicles but it also would apply to all those vehicles which are not allowed on public roads such as them ATV's and it also applies to speciality race cars driven in NASCAR or Formula I vehicles, for example. IIRC there was a mini controversy about a NASCAR driver a few years back who had his drivers license suspended for reckless driving but this did not impact his racing career since no license was required to drive at Daytona.

Now let us compare...

CARS: Buy as many as you want without a background check and no waiting periods. No need to have license to buy one and it need not be registered unless driven in public. No insurance required if kept on private property. If you do drive a specific vehicle into the public arena, then the driver must pass a simple skills test and a simple written test involving the rules of the road and safety. Whole process completed in a few hours. The vehicle is insured against driver negligence. License allows you to drive in all 50 states without a problem. Minimum age is usually 16

GUNS: If you take a gun out in public most every state requires you to be licensed and identify the firearm you take out in public by make model and serial #. The license usually requires a full FBI fingerprint check and background check, plus a skills test and a written safety and knowledge test. Entire process usually takes 60 days. License good in your state and maybe a few others which have reciprocity agreements. Most states do not require insurance for negligence. Minimum age is usually 21

Seems like, with the exception of insurance, the rules for cars are much looser than the rules for guns. Since firearms accidents are extremly rare as compared to cars (less than 700 deaths annually due to firearm accidents as compared to ~35,000 car accident deaths) insurance would be very cheap and in exchange we would get nationwide CCW reciprocity and no silly FBI fingerprint check that takes months? Where does one sign up for theis deal of treating guns like cars?

 

[JoeB131]

Cars: Not a constitutional right, kills more people than guns every single year, and JoeB. believes everyone should have unimpeded access to them.

Guns: A constitutional right, has a long history of saving lives, and JoeB. believes they should be banned or heavily restricted.

Yes ladies and gentlemen, this really is the "logic" of a self-admitted communist

Guy, to own a car, you have to be license, registered, insured, take it in for regular emissions testing, required to comply with dozens of safety regulations. And unfortunately, because we don't invest in public transportation, we need them.

Guns- Most people don't need them, and they don't do any good in the hands of civilians.

And your nonsensical drivel doesn't change any of the FACTS above.

Cars kill more humans every year than guns. So what difference does it make that you have to take it for emissions?

Clearly it's not about saving lives or you would be much more upset about automobiles.

Cars kill people in ACCIDENTS. And we spend millions on tryng to reduce accidents, from design to traffic safety to laws about child seats and seat belts...

People who die from gun shots are usually shot intentionally, by themselves and others.

If anything, they should have a HIGHER standard than cars, not a lower one

 

[P@triot]

BTW, I asked you a question regarding your Avatar when I had less than 20 post to my name on this board... you never answered. Is that Dr. Who?

Yes, that's the Third Doctor, Jon Pertwee. I had William Hartnell up in January and Patrick Troughton in Febuary. I'll finish the progression off in November with Matt Smith.

And frankly, I don't think we should be letting crazy people mow down children in schools with military grade weapons because 200 years ago, some slave-raper didn't want to pay his fair share of taxes.

Finally... the Slave raper bit? You did not fall for that Bogus theory did you Joe?

Not a bogus theory at all. Thomas Jefferson raped Sally Hemmings. It wasn't consensual because she was his property.

It was a proven FACT through DNA that Thomas Jefferson did NOT father her child. From page 3 of David Barton's book The Jefferson Lies: "However, after only 8 weeks after the initial blockbuster DNA story was issued, it was retracted quietly and without fanfare, with the scientific researcher who had conducted the DNA test announcing that it actually had not proven that Jefferson fathered any children with Hemings". As usual, JoeB. is completely ignorant of the facts.

Furthermore, just because she was a slave means she couldn't consent?

 

[P@triot]

So someone is going to chuck out thousands of dollars for a car and never drive it?

That's pretty much the only way you can avoid all the rules I've listed. And I'm still not sure about the emissions thingee.

Incorrect Joe. Many vehicles are driven solely on private property and are exempt from licensing and registration laws for that reason. The primary application is to farm vehicles but it also would apply to all those vehicles which are not allowed on public roads such as them ATV's and it also applies to speciality race cars driven in NASCAR or Formula I vehicles, for example. IIRC there was a mini controversy about a NASCAR driver a few years back who had his drivers license suspended for reckless driving but this did not impact his racing career since no license was required to drive at Daytona.

Now let us compare...

CARS: Buy as many as you want without a background check and no waiting periods. No need to have license to buy one and it need not be registered unless driven in public. No insurance required if kept on private property. If you do drive a specific vehicle into the public arena, then the driver must pass a simple skills test and a simple written test involving the rules of the road and safety. Whole process completed in a few hours. The vehicle is insured against driver negligence. License allows you to drive in all 50 states without a problem. Minimum age is usually 16

GUNS: If you take a gun out in public most every state requires you to be licensed and identify the firearm you take out in public by make model and serial #. The license usually requires a full FBI fingerprint check and background check, plus a skills test and a written safety and knowledge test. Entire process usually takes 60 days. License good in your state and maybe a few others which have reciprocity agreements. Most states do not require insurance for negligence. Minimum age is usually 21

Seems like, with the exception of insurance, the rules for cars are much looser than the rules for guns. Since firearms accidents are extremly rare as compared to cars (less than 700 deaths annually due to firearm accidents as compared to ~35,000 car accident deaths) insurance would be very cheap and in exchange we would get nationwide CCW reciprocity and no silly FBI fingerprint check that takes months? Where does one sign up for theis deal of treating guns like cars?

Watching you annihilate JoeB. with facts is a joy

 

[JoeB131]

[

It was a proven FACT through DNA that Thomas Jefferson did NOT father her child. From page 3 of David Barton's book The Jefferson Lies: "However, after only 8 weeks after the initial blockbuster DNA story was issued, it was retracted quietly and without fanfare, with the scientific researcher who had conducted the DNA test announcing that it actually had not proven that Jefferson fathered any children with Hemings". As usual, JoeB. is completely ignorant of the facts.

Furthermore, just because she was a slave means she couldn't consent?

No, the fact she was a SLAVE meant that she had no say in the matter.

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Brief Account « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

The results of DNA tests conducted by Dr. Eugene Foster and a team of geneticists in 1998 challenged the view that the Jefferson-Hemings relationship could be neither refuted nor substantiated . The study--which tested Y-chromosomal DNA samples from male-line descendants of Field Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson's uncle), John Carr (grandfather of Jefferson's Carr nephews), Eston Hemings, and Thomas Woodson--indicated a genetic link between the Jefferson and Hemings descendants. The results of the study established that an individual carrying the male Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Eston Hemings (born 1808), the last known child born to Sally Hemings. There were approximately 25 adult male Jeffersons who carried this chromosome living in Virginia at that time, and a few of them are known to have visited Monticello. The study's authors, however, said "the simplest and most probable" conclusion was that Thomas Jefferson had fathered Eston Hemings.

Whoops. That's from the MOnticello website...

 

[P@triot]

Cars kill people in ACCIDENTS. And we spend millions on tryng to reduce accidents, from design to traffic safety to laws about child seats and seat belts...

People who die from gun shots are usually shot intentionally, by themselves and others.

If anything, they should have a HIGHER standard than cars, not a lower one

People use automobiles every single day for "purposeful, criminal acts".

There have been incidents where jilted lovers have run over there significant others and/or the other woman, instances of mass killing by running over a large group of people on a sidewalk, and instances of people trying to commit suicide by intentionally hitting an innocent driver head-on.

Only idiot liberal stooges would be so stupid as to not be aware of reality...

 

[P@triot]

[

It was a proven FACT through DNA that Thomas Jefferson did NOT father her child. From page 3 of David Barton's book The Jefferson Lies: "However, after only 8 weeks after the initial blockbuster DNA story was issued, it was retracted quietly and without fanfare, with the scientific researcher who had conducted the DNA test announcing that it actually had not proven that Jefferson fathered any children with Hemings". As usual, JoeB. is completely ignorant of the facts.

Furthermore, just because she was a slave means she couldn't consent?

No, the fact she was a SLAVE meant that she had no say in the matter.

Thomas Jefferson and Sally Hemings: A Brief Account « Thomas Jefferson?s Monticello

The results of DNA tests conducted by Dr. Eugene Foster and a team of geneticists in 1998 challenged the view that the Jefferson-Hemings relationship could be neither refuted nor substantiated . The study--which tested Y-chromosomal DNA samples from male-line descendants of Field Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson's uncle), John Carr (grandfather of Jefferson's Carr nephews), Eston Hemings, and Thomas Woodson--indicated a genetic link between the Jefferson and Hemings descendants. The results of the study established that an individual carrying the male Jefferson Y chromosome fathered Eston Hemings (born 1808), the last known child born to Sally Hemings. There were approximately 25 adult male Jeffersons who carried this chromosome living in Virginia at that time, and a few of them are known to have visited Monticello. The study's authors, however, said "the simplest and most probable" conclusion was that Thomas Jefferson had fathered Eston Hemings.

Whoops. That's from the MOnticello website...

The story was retracted by the very scientist who did the DNA test. It turns out it was in fact Jefferson's brother that had a consensual relationship with Sally.

The liberals manufactured this story in the late 90's as a cover up for Bill Clinton and his Monica Lewinsky scandal (they desperately needed the narrative of "see - other presidents had done it, what's the big deal?).

Once again - JoeB. caught LYING....​

 

[P@triot]

No, the fact she was a SLAVE meant that she had no say in the matter.

Pure red-neck ignorance on display here. See - not everyone is a sub-human animal like you. Some slave owners treated their slaves like family (George Washington's "slaves" were treated like family and they cried when he died). Sally Hemmings could have been attracted to Thomas Jefferson's brother and consented to a relationship with him.

Liberals have to make up their own version of history because they are on the wrong side of it...

 

[velvtacheeze]

Not till gun owners are required to join a "well-regulated militia" , as the Constitution says, will the 2nd Amendment be correctly followed and interpreted.

The Right's insistence on pretending the first clause of the 2nd Amendment doesn't exist is the root cause of Newtown and Brunswick GA.

Unless of course you think that those two young men needed protection from that baby boy.

It's become clear to me since Newtown that conservative America is willing to accept Newtowns, and Auroras, and Brunswicks. as a reasonable cost of its gun fetish.