What are you prepared to do?

[Pop23]

This is awesome! The OP, who is afraid of his own shadow, is prepared to become an outlaw!

Let's see. What is the breaking point?

If you are forced to register your firearms, will you revolt?

If you are ordered to secure your weapons and told that you will be held accountable for any accidental shootings that result from your negligence, will you storm city hall?

If you are required to buy insurance for your firearms, will you refuse and start shooting people?

I think registering would be a trigger point for me. The NICS program that the Dems love for background checks is ANONYMOUS after a time period expires. That's to ENCOURAGE compliance. Which law abiding gun owners have no problem with at all.

But RETAINING those records would be a problem tantamount to registration.. Your turn...

You are concerned with registering your firearms? Why is that? As long as the law protects your right to own them, what harm does registering do? You think the government will take your guns if we know you have them?

Registering guns is necessary to maintain a well regulated militia

Then the 2nd would have read, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Note the bolded word does not appear in the second. The word is people.

 

[rightwinger]

This is awesome! The OP, who is afraid of his own shadow, is prepared to become an outlaw!

Let's see. What is the breaking point?

If you are forced to register your firearms, will you revolt?

If you are ordered to secure your weapons and told that you will be held accountable for any accidental shootings that result from your negligence, will you storm city hall?

If you are required to buy insurance for your firearms, will you refuse and start shooting people?

I think registering would be a trigger point for me. The NICS program that the Dems love for background checks is ANONYMOUS after a time period expires. That's to ENCOURAGE compliance. Which law abiding gun owners have no problem with at all.

But RETAINING those records would be a problem tantamount to registration.. Your turn...

You are concerned with registering your firearms? Why is that? As long as the law protects your right to own them, what harm does registering do? You think the government will take your guns if we know you have them?

Registering guns is necessary to maintain a well regulated militia

Then the 2nd would have read, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Note the bolded word does not appear in the second. The word is people.

If the founders intended unrestricted gun access the amendment would not have even mentioned militias. They could have just said the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed

They didn’t

 

[rightwinger]

You are concerned with registering your firearms? Why is that? As long as the law protects your right to own them, what harm does registering do? You think the government will take your guns if we know you have them?

Why would you inform the very people the 2nd is intended to protect you from that you own firearms?
That would be like telling China what weapons you planned on attacking them with and where they are.

Nope. That’s a crazy comparison.

I see you’ve decided to use the “stand against a tyrannical government” reading of the 2nd this morning. That’s nice.

Are you actually going to try and deny the intent of the 2nd amendment?

I don’t think you know what the intent was. I can tell you that your argument morphs depending on what your focus of the moment is.

Soon, you will tell us that you need your AR-15 to protect your family from burglars...and that the USC gives you that right.

Have you ever heard the argument that the 2nd was to serve as a reliable substitute for a standing army?

Sorry,it's clear what the intent is.

Clear as mud

That is why we are still arguing it after over 200 years

 

[Pop23]

This is awesome! The OP, who is afraid of his own shadow, is prepared to become an outlaw!

Let's see. What is the breaking point?

If you are forced to register your firearms, will you revolt?

If you are ordered to secure your weapons and told that you will be held accountable for any accidental shootings that result from your negligence, will you storm city hall?

If you are required to buy insurance for your firearms, will you refuse and start shooting people?

I think registering would be a trigger point for me. The NICS program that the Dems love for background checks is ANONYMOUS after a time period expires. That's to ENCOURAGE compliance. Which law abiding gun owners have no problem with at all.

But RETAINING those records would be a problem tantamount to registration.. Your turn...

You are concerned with registering your firearms? Why is that? As long as the law protects your right to own them, what harm does registering do? You think the government will take your guns if we know you have them?

Registering guns is necessary to maintain a well regulated militia

Then the 2nd would have read, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Note the bolded word does not appear in the second. The word is people.

If the founders intended unrestricted gun access the amendment would not have even mentioned militias. They could have just said the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed

They didn’t

Actually, the opposite would be true. If what you stated was correct, the 2nd would not exist in the "Bill of Rights", the section that grants "individuals" rights. A militia is not a militia. This would have been located far further down in the document and worded far differently.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Why would you inform the very people the 2nd is intended to protect you from that you own firearms?
That would be like telling China what weapons you planned on attacking them with and where they are.

Nope. That’s a crazy comparison.

I see you’ve decided to use the “stand against a tyrannical government” reading of the 2nd this morning. That’s nice.

Are you actually going to try and deny the intent of the 2nd amendment?

I don’t think you know what the intent was. I can tell you that your argument morphs depending on what your focus of the moment is.

Soon, you will tell us that you need your AR-15 to protect your family from burglars...and that the USC gives you that right.

Have you ever heard the argument that the 2nd was to serve as a reliable substitute for a standing army?

Sorry,it's clear what the intent is.

Clear as mud

That is why we are still arguing it after over 200 years

I'll let these people who are clearly smarter than you explain.....

 

[rightwinger]

I think registering would be a trigger point for me. The NICS program that the Dems love for background checks is ANONYMOUS after a time period expires. That's to ENCOURAGE compliance. Which law abiding gun owners have no problem with at all.

But RETAINING those records would be a problem tantamount to registration.. Your turn...

You are concerned with registering your firearms? Why is that? As long as the law protects your right to own them, what harm does registering do? You think the government will take your guns if we know you have them?

Registering guns is necessary to maintain a well regulated militia

Then the 2nd would have read, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Note the bolded word does not appear in the second. The word is people.

If the founders intended unrestricted gun access the amendment would not have even mentioned militias. They could have just said the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed

They didn’t

Actually, the opposite would be true. If what you stated was correct, the 2nd would not exist in the "Bill of Rights", the section that grants "individuals" rights. A militia is not a militia. This would have been located far further down in the document and worded far differently.

The purpose of the amendment was to ensure the militias had a supply of fully trained and armed militiamen.

If they wanted it as a guarantee of being armed they would have left it at that

 

[rightwinger]

Nope. That’s a crazy comparison.

I see you’ve decided to use the “stand against a tyrannical government” reading of the 2nd this morning. That’s nice.

Are you actually going to try and deny the intent of the 2nd amendment?

I don’t think you know what the intent was. I can tell you that your argument morphs depending on what your focus of the moment is.

Soon, you will tell us that you need your AR-15 to protect your family from burglars...and that the USC gives you that right.

Have you ever heard the argument that the 2nd was to serve as a reliable substitute for a standing army?

Sorry,it's clear what the intent is.

Clear as mud

That is why we are still arguing it after over 200 years

I'll let these people who are clearly smarter than you explain.....

Sorry

Don’t watch propaganda films

 

[Pop23]

Are you actually going to try and deny the intent of the 2nd amendment?

I don’t think you know what the intent was. I can tell you that your argument morphs depending on what your focus of the moment is.

Soon, you will tell us that you need your AR-15 to protect your family from burglars...and that the USC gives you that right.

Have you ever heard the argument that the 2nd was to serve as a reliable substitute for a standing army?

Sorry,it's clear what the intent is.

Clear as mud

That is why we are still arguing it after over 200 years

I'll let these people who are clearly smarter than you explain.....

Sorry

Don’t watch propaganda films

You are an idiot, and the right of an idiot to act as such shall not be infringed.

 

[Pop23]

You are concerned with registering your firearms? Why is that? As long as the law protects your right to own them, what harm does registering do? You think the government will take your guns if we know you have them?

Registering guns is necessary to maintain a well regulated militia

Then the 2nd would have read, the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Note the bolded word does not appear in the second. The word is people.

If the founders intended unrestricted gun access the amendment would not have even mentioned militias. They could have just said the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed

They didn’t

Actually, the opposite would be true. If what you stated was correct, the 2nd would not exist in the "Bill of Rights", the section that grants "individuals" rights. A militia is not a militia. This would have been located far further down in the document and worded far differently.

The purpose of the amendment was to ensure the militias had a supply of fully trained and armed militiamen.

If they wanted it as a guarantee of being armed they would have left it at that

You failed 8th grade, right?

 

[August West]

Here’s what wil probably happen

There will be no gun ban. But what if they ban AR15s?

The Government will not send David Hogg to get your gun. There will probabaly be some buy back program followed by amnesties to turn in your gun

If you ignore it, you will probabaly just keep your AR 15. Nobody will come searching. But if you are out hunting squirrels with it, it will be confiscated. You can’t show off your shooting skills at the gun range. You can’t dare sell it. Your wife will bug you to get rid of it

So you have a nice toy you can take out and look at

If they actually had shooting skills they wouldn`t need to be playing with these types of guns. These were designed to be used by blind people.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Are you actually going to try and deny the intent of the 2nd amendment?

I don’t think you know what the intent was. I can tell you that your argument morphs depending on what your focus of the moment is.

Soon, you will tell us that you need your AR-15 to protect your family from burglars...and that the USC gives you that right.

Have you ever heard the argument that the 2nd was to serve as a reliable substitute for a standing army?

Sorry,it's clear what the intent is.

Clear as mud

That is why we are still arguing it after over 200 years

I'll let these people who are clearly smarter than you explain.....

Sorry

Don’t watch propaganda films

So you dont trust experts on the English language?
Pretty sure Roy Copperud was way smarter than you...
Roy Copperud, 76, Journalism Teacher Who Wrote Column

 

[Pop23]

I don’t think you know what the intent was. I can tell you that your argument morphs depending on what your focus of the moment is.

Soon, you will tell us that you need your AR-15 to protect your family from burglars...and that the USC gives you that right.

Have you ever heard the argument that the 2nd was to serve as a reliable substitute for a standing army?

Sorry,it's clear what the intent is.

Clear as mud

That is why we are still arguing it after over 200 years

I'll let these people who are clearly smarter than you explain.....

Sorry

Don’t watch propaganda films

So you dont trust experts on the English language?
Pretty sure Roy Copperud was way smarter than you...
Roy Copperud, 76, Journalism Teacher Who Wrote Column

Correct, but since the moron refused to look at the evidence, it might be handy to post from it:

A well-schooled electorate, being necessary to the security a free state, the right of the people to read and keep books shall not be infringed.

Kind of sums it up.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

Sorry,it's clear what the intent is.

Clear as mud

That is why we are still arguing it after over 200 years

I'll let these people who are clearly smarter than you explain.....

Sorry

Don’t watch propaganda films

You are an idiot, and the right of an idiot to act as such shall not be infringed.

I’m not an idiot.......mother had me tested

The man said I was special

I dont think you understand what they meant....
And I hate to break it to you but Special Ed doesnt mean what your Mommy told you.

 

[Pop23]

Sorry,it's clear what the intent is.

Clear as mud

That is why we are still arguing it after over 200 years

I'll let these people who are clearly smarter than you explain.....

Sorry

Don’t watch propaganda films

You are an idiot, and the right of an idiot to act as such shall not be infringed.

I’m not an idiot.......mother had me tested

The man said I was special

The right of RightWinger to be picked up with a short bus shall not be infringed.

 

[Pop23]

Sorry,it's clear what the intent is.

Clear as mud

That is why we are still arguing it after over 200 years

I'll let these people who are clearly smarter than you explain.....

Sorry

Don’t watch propaganda films

So you dont trust experts on the English language?
Pretty sure Roy Copperud was way smarter than you...
Roy Copperud, 76, Journalism Teacher Who Wrote Column

Roy Copperud was in my sixth grade class

He used to copy off of me

RightWinger trying to save face with humor is always noteworthy.

 

[Pop23]

I'll let these people who are clearly smarter than you explain.....

Sorry

Don’t watch propaganda films

So you dont trust experts on the English language?
Pretty sure Roy Copperud was way smarter than you...
Roy Copperud, 76, Journalism Teacher Who Wrote Column

Roy Copperud was in my sixth grade class

He used to copy off of me

RightWinger trying to save face with humor is always noteworthy.

I got a million of em

No doubt you do, and you prolly need em all.

 

[HereWeGoAgain]

I'll let these people who are clearly smarter than you explain.....

Sorry

Don’t watch propaganda films

So you dont trust experts on the English language?
Pretty sure Roy Copperud was way smarter than you...
Roy Copperud, 76, Journalism Teacher Who Wrote Column

Roy Copperud was in my sixth grade class

He used to copy off of me

RightWinger trying to save face with humor is always noteworthy.

I got a million of em

Quantity over quality.....

 

[dannyboys]

Sorry

Don’t watch propaganda films

So you dont trust experts on the English language?
Pretty sure Roy Copperud was way smarter than you...
Roy Copperud, 76, Journalism Teacher Who Wrote Column

Roy Copperud was in my sixth grade class

He used to copy off of me

RightWinger trying to save face with humor is always noteworthy.

I got a million of em

No doubt you do, and you prolly need em all.

My answer: 'Come Get Some Motherfucker'!
The US NG/military will NEVER go to war against their own people.
That leaves the LIB 'man-bun' pyjama-boys' to stand up and fight.
What are they going to use as weapons? Pieces of red licorice?
In other words no one.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

“I have heard a lot of talk here and elsewhere from 2nd Amendment supporters like me. How theywont turn in their guns, how it will be the next Civil War if they try to take them, I see hats with Mulon Labe on them and I see Gadson Flags flying.”

I see ignorance and stupidity.

But let’s explore this ignorance and stupidity.

In order for ‘confiscation’ to occur, a given jurisdiction must enact a measure authorizing ‘confiscation,’ either by gunowners surrendering their firearms to the authorities or having firearms seized by the authorities.

Setting aside for the moment that this would never happen, and setting aside 4th Amendment search and seizure jurisprudence, once enacted such a law would be subject to a court challenge and enjoined from being enforced by the court.

The ‘confiscation’ measure would be struck down by the District court as being in violation of the Second Amendment, a ruling that would be upheld by the appropriate appellate court.

This thread’s premise is therefore utterly ridiculous – again, no one seeks to ‘confiscate’ guns, no one seeks to enact a measure authorizing the ‘confiscation’ of guns, and even if such a measure were enacted, the courts would never allow ‘confiscation’ to happen.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It never fails to amuse how most on the right have come to loath the Heller ruling and believe their hero Scalia ‘betrayed’ them because he acknowledged the fact that the Second Amendment is neither unlimited nor absolute, and subject to restrictions by government.