To all Gun Grabbers

[hunarcy]

No. We don't.
The 2nd Amendment protects our right to own them and use them for traditionally lawful purposes -- we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them.

View attachment 253277

The 2nd was written with people like you in mind - thank you for validating its purpose.

Fact remains - we are not, and in fact cannot be, in any way in any way shape or form required demonstrate a need for them, and there's nothing you can do about it.

The 2nd was written with a militia in mind....

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home - and was written with people like you in mind.
Why do you think it is constitutionally permissible to requite training, testing and licensing as a condition to exercise a right?

Because guns are lethal weapons? Why do we require training, testing and licensing before driving a vehicle on a public road where others are also travelling? Public safety.

Because driving is a privilege while owning firearms is a right. The same reason we can't require people to be able to read in order to vote.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I didn't ignore your question. Shoot at someone with your gun. You get six chances. If you still haven't managed to hit anyone, change the magazine. This can be done in a couple of seconds with no problem whatsoever according to the many, many gun owners here who have told me that time and time again.

If it's so easy to change magazines at night,in a rush/panic with potentially armed invaders bearing down, why do we think limiting mag capacity will make any difference in a gun-free zone, where the shooter has no opposition and can easily reload, as you said?

This is the epitome of talking out of both sides of one's ass.


The average citizen can just get a new mag (in the dark with armed opposition bearing sown) but a school shooter who has no opposition will fuck it up and all will be well?


.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But the Courts have come up with a "Heller Test" that seems to be 15 rounds in a mag that sounds fair.

A test that the USSC has yet to rule on, and has no basis in current jurisprudence from same.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You all have convinced me. We must keep our right to bear arms; we must do this in order to protect against our government's tanks, missiles, drones, bombs, etc. We will prevail because we have 30 count magazines instead of 10. We will shoot them all, destroy them, and take back our country from the communist filth that wishes to suck us up.

Why is it so hard for you people to grasp reality? If the Jews had pistols, do you think they would have been able to protect themselves from the SS? The entire German army? Sure, they might have taken a few with them, I'll admit.

The days when we were equally matched with the firepower of our government are long gone. It's already too late.

This sounds like a pile of butt-hurt over the fact you cannot lay out a sound argument to support your position.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

You all have convinced me. We must keep our right to bear arms; we must do this in order to protect against our government's tanks, missiles, drones, bombs, etc. We will prevail because we have 30 count magazines instead of 10. We will shoot them all, destroy them, and take back our country from the communist filth that wishes to suck us up.

Why is it so hard for you people to grasp reality? If the Jews had pistols, do you think they would have been able to protect themselves from the SS? The entire German army? Sure, they might have taken a few with them, I'll admit.

The days when we were equally matched with the firepower of our government are long gone. It's already too late.

This sounds like a pile of butt-hurt over the fact you cannot lay out a sound argument to support your position.

Why do gun grabbers think the we-cannot-beat-the-big-bad-military argument helps their case?

They are making our point for us. How are we supposed to defend ourselves against a powerful military with civilian weapons?

We need more.

We need machine guns.

.

 

[Hale]

You all have convinced me. We must keep our right to bear arms; we must do this in order to protect against our government's tanks, missiles, drones, bombs, etc. We will prevail because we have 30 count magazines instead of 10. We will shoot them all, destroy them, and take back our country from the communist filth that wishes to suck us up.

Why is it so hard for you people to grasp reality? If the Jews had pistols, do you think they would have been able to protect themselves from the SS? The entire German army? Sure, they might have taken a few with them, I'll admit.

The days when we were equally matched with the firepower of our government are long gone. It's already too late.

With this attitude the USA would not exist. No sense in fighting the British, right? Just let them take and take.

You may live here, but you're not an American.

 

[M14 Shooter]

You all have convinced me. We must keep our right to bear arms; we must do this in order to protect against our government's tanks, missiles, drones, bombs, etc. We will prevail because we have 30 count magazines instead of 10. We will shoot them all, destroy them, and take back our country from the communist filth that wishes to suck us up.

Why is it so hard for you people to grasp reality? If the Jews had pistols, do you think they would have been able to protect themselves from the SS? The entire German army? Sure, they might have taken a few with them, I'll admit.

The days when we were equally matched with the firepower of our government are long gone. It's already too late.

This sounds like a pile of butt-hurt over the fact you cannot lay out a sound argument to support your position.

Why do gun grabbers think the we-cannot-beat-the-big-bad-military argument helps their case?

Ignorance, and their unwavering faith in the all-powerful state,

 

[buckeye45_73]

You all have convinced me. We must keep our right to bear arms; we must do this in order to protect against our government's tanks, missiles, drones, bombs, etc. We will prevail because we have 30 count magazines instead of 10. We will shoot them all, destroy them, and take back our country from the communist filth that wishes to suck us up.

Why is it so hard for you people to grasp reality? If the Jews had pistols, do you think they would have been able to protect themselves from the SS? The entire German army? Sure, they might have taken a few with them, I'll admit.

The days when we were equally matched with the firepower of our government are long gone. It's already too late.

Ah hyperbole and sarcasm....now you sound like Trump....maybe you can get his jokes now.....
And it's not too late......why do dicatorships keep requiring people give up their guns? Because it's still usefull.....I really doubt the government is going to nuke a city with rebels in it.......

But it's ironic that people like you complain how bad the cops are and how racist they are and yet you want them to be the only people with guns.....that's so weird to me

 

[Daryl Hunt]

But the Courts have come up with a "Heller Test" that seems to be 15 rounds in a mag that sounds fair.

A test that the USSC has yet to rule on, and has no basis in current jurisprudence from same.

And I don't expect them to rule on it. SCOTUS has avoided 2nd amendment cases like the plague with very few exceptions. Mostly, they just refuse to hear them and let the lower courts ruling stand. In this case, the lower court invented the Heller Test out of the Heller V DC ruling. You don't like the way the way things are, move to a country more to your liking. I hear Yemen has openings.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But the Courts have come up with a "Heller Test" that seems to be 15 rounds in a mag that sounds fair.

A test that the USSC has yet to rule on, and has no basis in current jurisprudence from same.

And I don't expect them to rule on it.

Because you don't understand how they decide what to hear..
Your supposed "Heller test" - which doesn't have anything to do with the actual ruling in Heller - created a split in the courts; when the courts are split, they USSC is much more likely to hear a case and rule.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

But the Courts have come up with a "Heller Test" that seems to be 15 rounds in a mag that sounds fair.

A test that the USSC has yet to rule on, and has no basis in current jurisprudence from same.

And I don't expect them to rule on it.

Because you don't understand how they decide what to hear..
Your supposed "Heller test" - which doesn't have anything to do with the actual ruling in Heller - created a split in the courts; when the courts are split, they USSC is much more likely to hear a case and rule.

They haven't so far. And until they do, the "Heller Test" stands. You don't like it because it differs from your own views. You claim it's unconstitutional because it's against your own views. Well, until the Supreme Court says otherwise or the Congress and President signs something into law, that's the law of the land and it IS constitutional.

 

[M14 Shooter]

But the Courts have come up with a "Heller Test" that seems to be 15 rounds in a mag that sounds fair.

A test that the USSC has yet to rule on, and has no basis in current jurisprudence from same.

And I don't expect them to rule on it.

Because you don't understand how they decide what to hear..
Your supposed "Heller test" - which doesn't have anything to do with the actual ruling in Heller - created a split in the courts; when the courts are split, they USSC is much more likely to hear a case and rule.

They haven't so far.

This doe s not change the fact you do not understand how they decide what to hear, and that a split on the circuits make it more likely that it will be heard.

Nor does it change the fact the "Heller test" is not in any way related to the actual jurisprudence found in Heller.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

But the Courts have come up with a "Heller Test" that seems to be 15 rounds in a mag that sounds fair.

A test that the USSC has yet to rule on, and has no basis in current jurisprudence from same.

And I don't expect them to rule on it.

Because you don't understand how they decide what to hear..
Your supposed "Heller test" - which doesn't have anything to do with the actual ruling in Heller - created a split in the courts; when the courts are split, they USSC is much more likely to hear a case and rule.

They haven't so far.

This doe s not change the fact you do not understand how they decide what to hear, and that a split on the circuits make it more likely that it will be heard.

Nor does it change the fact the "Heller test" is not in any way related to the actual jurisprudence found in Heller.

Heller V tried to rule what was Normal but they never put an actual number to it. The lower Federal Courts have finally put a real number to it and now the Heller Test proves out to be 15 if you take two Federal District Court Rulings where one found that 15 rounds met the criteria without calling it anything and the other found that 10 rounds did not meet the heller criteria and for the first time called it the Heller Test. It's now been established. The Heller Test for number of rounds in a mag is 15.

 

[M14 Shooter]

A test that the USSC has yet to rule on, and has no basis in current jurisprudence from same.

And I don't expect them to rule on it.

Because you don't understand how they decide what to hear..
Your supposed "Heller test" - which doesn't have anything to do with the actual ruling in Heller - created a split in the courts; when the courts are split, they USSC is much more likely to hear a case and rule.

They haven't so far.

This doe s not change the fact you do not understand how they decide what to hear, and that a split on the circuits make it more likely that it will be heard.
Nor does it change the fact the "Heller test" is not in any way related to the actual jurisprudence found in Heller.

Heller V tried to rule what was Normal but they never put an actual number to it.

Magazine size was never a question in DC v Heller - thus, you cannot be right, and your "heller test" is not related to the ruling in Heller.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And I don't expect them to rule on it.

Because you don't understand how they decide what to hear..
Your supposed "Heller test" - which doesn't have anything to do with the actual ruling in Heller - created a split in the courts; when the courts are split, they USSC is much more likely to hear a case and rule.

They haven't so far.

This doe s not change the fact you do not understand how they decide what to hear, and that a split on the circuits make it more likely that it will be heard.
Nor does it change the fact the "Heller test" is not in any way related to the actual jurisprudence found in Heller.

Heller V tried to rule what was Normal but they never put an actual number to it.

Magazine size was never a question in DC v Heller - thus, you cannot be right, and your "heller test" is not related to the ruling in Heller.

From Heller V DC
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.

I read Miller and Miller didn't exactly refer to it that way but someone read it that way and SCOTUS made the ruling without checking with me first. How dare they. Heller V did not establish the number either but it recognized that common firearms was the order. Therefore, a COMMON or norm had to be set. It's been set. The number of rounds is 15. Not 10, not 5, not 20, not 30, not back the truck up magazine. This has been set by two different Federal Courts independent of each other using the ruling of heller and miller of the definition of common.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Because you don't understand how they decide what to hear..
Your supposed "Heller test" - which doesn't have anything to do with the actual ruling in Heller - created a split in the courts; when the courts are split, they USSC is much more likely to hear a case and rule.

They haven't so far.

This doe s not change the fact you do not understand how they decide what to hear, and that a split on the circuits make it more likely that it will be heard.
Nor does it change the fact the "Heller test" is not in any way related to the actual jurisprudence found in Heller.

Heller V tried to rule what was Normal but they never put an actual number to it.

Magazine size was never a question in DC v Heller - thus, you cannot be right, and your "heller test" is not related to the ruling in Heller.

From Heller V DC
Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons.
I read Miller and Miller didn't exactly refer to it that way....
Heller V did not establish the number either....

And so, as I said, magazine size was never a question in DC v Heller - and thus, your "Heller test" is not related to the ruling in Heller.
Why do yo need t lie to make a point?

...that common firearms was the order....

No. Fireams "in common use".
Firearms Not magazines. Magazine-fed firearms and are, unquestionably, in common use, and therefore protected by the 2nd.
The limits to magazines sizes are arbitrary, with no rational basis, unrelated to the rulings Heller and Miller, and cannot be demonstrated as the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling state interest.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I bet they said the same thing in Venezuela and countless other commie countries.
It only took six years after Venezuela banned firearms for the government to put their boot on the necks of their citizens.

WTF is wrong with you!!!

The issue is your assumptions. You assume OldLady sees Venezuela as a cautionary tale, when in fact is it a goal to her.