The Right To Bear Arms

[P@triot]

Look for some changes in 2018 and then again in 2020 when the young are voters.

I’m sorry...we’re too busy still looking for that “landslide” victory by Hitlery Clinton that you people predicted.

Every time the left attempts to predict the future, they come out looking like complete and total buffoons. And every time the left attempts to go after firearms, they pay the price at the polls. Americans don’t like it when representatives go after their rights.

 

[P@triot]

Even Reagan wanted better gun control laws. Was he a bedwetter as well?

I never called anyone a “bedwetter” about this. But it’s beyond asinine that one would advocate that emotional 14 year olds who are fresh off of a tragedy should set policy in the U.S.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

I mostly agree what these kids are saying. We need to listen now.

Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that children - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.

There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.

Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.

You touched the point here.

It's nonsense that we limit drinking age to 21, but we send 18 year old kids to the war.

Now, if they're going to increase age requirement to purchase guns to 21, than military requirement should be no less than 21. And since you mentioned, If you're younger than 21 and you're not responsible enough to have a gun, than you're not responsible enough to vote neither.

The Military operates on the premise that they are going to retrain a person to do something that is completely against their normal behavior. IT's easier to train an 18 year old than it is a 21 year old. It's not a natural thing to shoot peoiple.

 

[P@triot]

But we can easily expand it to the dealers at the Gun Shows. Actually, a couple of the dealers I know that have booths in the Guns Shows have a computer and do background checks anyway right on the spot.

That’s because it is law. A dealer may never sell a firearm without a background check - including at gun shows. I’m sorry, but you simply do not have your facts straight.

most lefties dont and they refuse to accept the facts when presented to them over and over

So frustrating. By its very nature, one must be ignorant and reject the fact to be a lefty. If one had then facts - or accepted them and examined them when presented - they wouldn’t be on the left.

 

[P@triot]

The Military operates on the premise that they are going to retrain a person to do something that is completely against their normal behavior. IT's easier to train an 18 year old than it is a 21 year old. It's not a natural thing to shoot peoiple.

So you are now openly admitting that the younger a person is, the more they are weak minded and easily molded. Awesome. Just awesome.

And these are the people you believe should set policy in the U.S.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Look for some changes in 2018 and then again in 2020 when the young are voters.

I’m sorry...we’re too busy still looking for that “landslide” victory by Hitlery Clinton that you people predicted.

Every time the left attempts to predict the future, they come out looking like complete and total buffoons. And every time the left attempts to go after firearms, they pay the price at the polls. Americans don’t like it when representatives go after their rights.

Those kids taht you find are not developed are all high schoolers. Many will be voting in 2018 and all of them can vote in 2020. I would think that resource would be sought after instead of just put to the side of the tracks. So go ahead, you may have just created the next generation of Democrats.

 

[turtledude]

what do I need a gun for? many reasons-one of them being to prevent people like you from trying to strip away our rights

Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.

Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.

Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.

Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.

You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?

We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.

So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?

Since 1980, deaths from cars have been cut in half. That was accomplished solely because of government action.

and yet no cars were banned/

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The Military operates on the premise that they are going to retrain a person to do something that is completely against their normal behavior. IT's easier to train an 18 year old than it is a 21 year old. It's not a natural thing to shoot peoiple.

So you are now openly admitting that the younger a person is, the more they are weak minded and easily molded. Awesome. Just awesome.

And these are the people you believe should set policy in the U.S.

Make sure you keep insulting them and ignoring them. Starting 2018 (this year) many of them will be voting. By 2020 almost all will be of voting age. You are creating the next generation of Democrats where the majority of of the students and ex students will go that way as a block.

 

[Ame®icano]

Merely owning a firearm adds risk to you and society.

The same goes for your 1st Amendment rights. You illustrate your profound ignorance and can influence likewise uneducated people. So you would logically agree that we should revoke your 1st Amendment rights - correct?

Another good one.

It remind me how lefties keeps saying that 2nd Amendment is outdated because FF's were thinking of muskets, and not about weapons of the future. How lefties would react if we say that 1st Amendment is outdated, and that freedom of the press includes newspapers only, since at the time the FF's couldn't possibly predict the radio, TV, internet, satellites...

By the way, when Bill of Rights was written, there were already multiple shots guns, even machine guns.

 

[Ame®icano]

I mostly agree what these kids are saying. We need to listen now.

Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that children - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.

There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.

Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.

You touched the point here.

It's nonsense that we limit drinking age to 21, but we send 18 year old kids to the war.

Now, if they're going to increase age requirement to purchase guns to 21, than military requirement should be no less than 21. And since you mentioned, If you're younger than 21 and you're not responsible enough to have a gun, than you're not responsible enough to vote neither.

The Military operates on the premise that they are going to retrain a person to do something that is completely against their normal behavior. IT's easier to train an 18 year old than it is a 21 year old. It's not a natural thing to shoot peoiple.

It's even easier to train them when they're younger... Why don't we start with military training right out of elementary school?

 

[P@triot]

It remind me how lefties keeps saying that 2nd Amendment is outdated because FF's were thinking of muskets, and not about weapons of the future. How lefties would react if we say that 1st Amendment is outdated, and that freedom of the press includes newspapers only, since at the time the FF's couldn't possibly predict the radio, TV, internet, satellites...

Bingo! In the time of the founders...it took about 4 months for information to cross the ocean. Now someone can text disinformation around the world it under 4 seconds. I guess the left would agree that we should revoke their 1st Amendment rights.

The irony of this? It’s more ignorant left-wing misinformation. There were in fact fully automatic firearms at the time the 2nd Amendment was ratified. The Puckle gun (1718) and the Belton flintlock (1777) are just two of many automatic weapons of that era.



These Guns Dispel The Notion The Founding Fathers Could Never Have Imagined Modern Assault Rifles

 

[P@triot]

 

[Issa]

Enjoy them, I hope you don't kill someone when you lose your temper as many do.

Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.

Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.

Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.

You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?

We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.

So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?

I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.

More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?

Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.

 

[Papageorgio]

Less than one tenth of one percent ever use a gun to kill someone. The fact that you own a registered gun reduces that stat to less than 100th of one percent.

Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.

Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.

You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?

We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.

So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?

I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.

More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?

Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.

So you don’t care about children?

 

[Issa]

Tell that to the 17 parents, or the families of the Las Vegas massacre.

Tell that to the 1000 of parents that have lost their children in an auto accident.

You are more likely to die in an automobile accident then shot. There is a lot of hard evidence that raising the driver age to 25 would prevent many many accidents, as the brain has not developed fully to allow children to make the best decision, yet we have done nothing. We have also learned that cars that weigh more have less injuries and less chance of a fatality. No one seems to care about it that much, why?

We lose many young people to boat propeller accidents and many have worked to get the NTSB to put prop guards on house boats, no luck, the money vs. the benefit isn't there.

So are you saying that the loss of youth in prop accidents, the loss of life in auto accidents is acceptable?

I'm sorry more guns more deaths....dozens of countries don't have mass shootings due to the non availability of guns in the US. America is still stuck in the 18th century when or comes to guns.

More cars, more deaths, countries that have few cars have less deaths, somyou don’t care that we can save thousands more each year?

Tunisia, Morocco and lybia have less car deaths per capital than larger countries like France for example.
Apples and oranges, you are smarter than this.

So you don’t care about children?

I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.

 

[Ame®icano]

So you don’t care about children?

I do. That's why I call for banning guns like other countries. I want American kids to grow up safe like I did in a gun free country.

Banning pools would save more kids.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I essentially see two vocal camps in here. The ones that want to get rid of the guns are very straight forward about it. We'll call the "Nothing". Meanwhile, we also have another group that we will have the "All".

The Nothing want to ban all firearms from everyone. This is really a very small representative group. They, more or less, say that without guns, there would be no gun crimes or accidents. True to some extent. But the Gun Violence is, say, Britain still happens. And Accidents will happen with or without guns. Not going to happen in my lifetime.

Now the All wants no regulation on any part of their lives. Not just in Guns but everything. More or less, get the Government completely out of their lives. Well, not quite out of their lives. They still want the highways, and other social services that they think is part of the right to live in the US. They want the Electricity and Natural Gas, the Trains, and more that if they weren't depending on them they would be calling them Socialist. So, it because ALL laws governing the use, possessing and sale of Firearms should be banned. Again, not going to happen in my lifetime.

I am like MOST people. We believe in common sense regulations on everything. Here are some of the arguments:

Common Sense: Firearms, for the most part are the right of every American
Uncommon Response: NO, WE NEED TO GET RID OF ALL FIREARMS!!!!
NOT IN MOST CASES, IT'S AN ABSOLUTE RIGHT!!!!!

Common sense: We need to prevent those on the No Fly List from purchasing Firearms
Uncommon response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!!
NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!

Common sense: We need to handle firearms exactly like we do Alchohol. It's okay for an 18 year of to drink in the privacy of their home and with the consent of their parents or guardians who assumes all responsibility. But raise the non consent age to 21 just like Booze.
We get two uncommon responses on this one:
OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
and NOT GOOD ENOUGH, ALL FIREARMS SHOULD BE BANNED!!!!!

Common sense: We need to require all firearms sales to go through a background check
Uncommon Response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
THERE SHOULD BE NO BACKGROUND CHECKS, NO FIREARMS!!!!!!

Common sense: Reclassify the AR and the AK to the next level of Firearms License. Before the AR became the rifle of choice for mass killings, the AR was. During Reagan's days, Reagan want the AK to have to be reclassified that way. He called them Assault Rifles. It became a law for a few years catching the Military Origin Rifles along with some handguns. It wasn't a Ban, it was a reclassification
Uncommon Response: OVER MY DEAD BODY!!!!!!
NOT GOOD ENOUGH, WE DEMAND ALL FIREARMS BE BANNED!!!!!!

There is a definite pattern here. The Alls and the Nothings. It becomes All or nothing. And common sense is completely removed from the equation. For instance, the School Children are actually trying to get some common sense laws passed like the ones I mentioned above. They asking for those three. Not out of reasons and certain will not cause any bans. I also added the fourth. These are common sense laws that do not ban the firearms but would have stopped all but one Mass Shooting; The one in Vegas, from occurring. Yes, the weapons might have been bought but it would have taken more time and flags would have been raised giving the Local and Federals time to prevent it from happening. The One in Nevada was done by a season shooter who would have qualified for almost any firearms license including Automatic Weapons and had the knowledge to use the law to his own ends.

Now they are putting armed guards in the High Schools here using the Educational District funds to do it. That means that there will be even less funds for books, supplies, etc. that the Teachers help to support out of their own salaries. The only thing we really get out of this is a poorer education for our Children.

I support the School Children and their Parents. I don't support either side of the Alls or Nothings. It's called Common Sense. Sometimes the best solution comes from the mouths of Babes.

I essentially see that you're too busy listening to the voices in your head to hear what actual people are saying to you.

None of the 2nd Amendment supporters you've been talking to are "no regulation on anything, at all, any time". Neither is the NRA, that ultimate mega-bogeyman of the left. Background checks to make certain people are actually allowed to own guns are okay, so long as you're not trying to pair them with utterly unnecessary and pointless waiting periods. No gun ownership for violently unstable mental patients? Okay, as long as you're willing to respect their 5th Amendment rights to due process in determining that they're violent and unstable (might also be a good time to get them some treatment, if you can fight your way past all the ACLU lawyers. Just sayin').

These sound like perfectly reasonable points of compromise where we could meet and agree to me. Unfortunately, they sound like "No regulations! We want dead children! Aaaaauuuugh!!!" to you, which is why nothing meaningful is ever going to get done regarding gun violence.

Yes, these are common sense ideas that would probably stop or highly reduce the body count. But I can see that you are just trying another end run for "OVER MY DEAD BODY" routine. It's not what you say but what you do that counts.

Now I am going to hear from the "OVER MY DEAD BODY" crowd. You don't want to discuss it. You wan to resort to personal insults so that the discussion is ended. Same Same, I go with your actions.

Chuckles, you have no idea about "what I do", so don't even try that. All you're saying here is, "I don't want to reach a compromise. I want to keep screaming and demanding my way."

 

[Cecilie1200]

I guess I am one of the few who is ambivalent about guns
I grew up with them and hunted ducks and geese and shot up cans. I knew right away what guns could do, how powerful and deadly. I did not like to make live things into dead things so not much of a hunter
I still have the12 gauge and the 22. Don't think I need them but not looking to register, license, pay a fee take a class.........to keep them. Not looking to give them away either. I do not fear the government nor need to firearm protect myself from it but I do view the guns as a potential needed deterrent for criminals.

I simply feel that multiple capacity rapid fire ammo is not necessary. The risk outweighs the reward and the right

We have a problem with this school stuff. No way around it. Problem is how to solve it. I think it took about 50 years to get to this societal maniac display state we are in and gotta bad feeling that doing one thing in one year won't be the solution

Rapid fire ammo?

And what is the "risk" involved in "multiple capacity"?

Never mind your "feewings". Tell us something real and meaningful.

 

[Cecilie1200]

I mostly agree what these kids are saying. We need to listen now.

Well that is extremely sad. You are a part of the problem. Anyone who believes that children - who are emotional from just experiencing a tragedy - should create policy in the U.S. is a certified idiot.

There is a reason we don’t left children vote. They are ignorant. They don’t have the life experience. They don’t have the majority. And on top of that - to add to extreme emotion is all the more reason to completely ignore them when it comes to policy.

Policy should be set by mature, calm, rational adults.

And those children don't need the media and the nation listening. They need a trauma counselor listening. The first thing a counselor tells the victim of a crime is, "Do not make any major life decisions right now", because they are in no condition to do so in a healthy, effective, positive manner.

 

[jon_berzerk]

I guess I am one of the few who is ambivalent about guns
I grew up with them and hunted ducks and geese and shot up cans. I knew right away what guns could do, how powerful and deadly. I did not like to make live things into dead things so not much of a hunter
I still have the12 gauge and the 22. Don't think I need them but not looking to register, license, pay a fee take a class.........to keep them. Not looking to give them away either. I do not fear the government nor need to firearm protect myself from it but I do view the guns as a potential needed deterrent for criminals.

I simply feel that multiple capacity rapid fire ammo is not necessary. The risk outweighs the reward and the right

We have a problem with this school stuff. No way around it. Problem is how to solve it. I think it took about 50 years to get to this societal maniac display state we are in and gotta bad feeling that doing one thing in one year won't be the solution

Rapid fire ammo?

And what is the "risk" involved in "multiple capacity"?

Never mind your "feewings". Tell us something real and meaningful.

multiple capacity magazine --LOL