Why Does Anybody Need a 30-Round Magazine?

[tjvh]

My bad.

Some shoot adults in the face.

Some shoot their wives.

Some shoot total strangers.

Like 30K people lose their lives in this country each year because you folks want nuts to own guns.

That better?

In other words, you have no rebuttal... Why am I not surprised?

Rebuttal to what?

You folks are insane.

Seriously so.

Insane because we believe we have the Right to protect our Freedoms from utopian dreaming progressive idiots like yourself. You're the exact person nobody needs to be telling others what freedoms they may, or may not be allowed to exercise... Seriously so.

 

[Sallow]

I enlarged and colored the relevant part.
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes | LII / Legal Information Institute
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.

What part are you missing?

The constitution specifically states..and in CLEAR ENGLISH, that they are under congressional control.

The constitution makes no mention of an "unorganized" militia.

None.

Nadda.

I'm not missing anything. What are you missing?

The founders would never have created a document that would enslave people, since they fought that very thing?

They did not say in the second amendment

A Militia well regulated by congress, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

That actually believe it or not said.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And well regulated does not mean regulated by the government, Historically speaking it means as expected in working order.

The Constitution does not have a amendment, clause, word or letter that allows for armed rebellion.

And..it does have several clauses that allows the government to squash them.

Like they did in the Whiskey rebellion.

Like they did in the Civil War.

 

[tjvh]

What part are you missing?

The constitution specifically states..and in CLEAR ENGLISH, that they are under congressional control.

The constitution makes no mention of an "unorganized" militia.

None.

Nadda.

I'm not missing anything. What are you missing?

The founders would never have created a document that would enslave people, since they fought that very thing?

They did not say in the second amendment


That actually believe it or not said.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And well regulated does not mean regulated by the government, Historically speaking it means as expected in working order.

The Constitution does not have a amendment, clause, word or letter that allows for armed rebellion.

And..it does have several clauses that allows the government to squash them.

Like they did in the Whiskey rebellion.

Like they did in the Civil War.

All enemies foreign and domestic sums it up for me.

 

[Sallow]

In other words, you have no rebuttal... Why am I not surprised?

Rebuttal to what?

You folks are insane.

Seriously so.

Insane because we believe we have the Right to protect our Freedoms from utopian dreaming progressive idiots like yourself. You're the exact person nobody needs to be telling others what freedoms they may, or may not be allowed to exercise... Seriously so.

This is laughable..since it's folks like yourself that regulate all sorts of freedoms.

Like free speech.
Like the freedom to express your religious beliefs.
Like the freedom to vote.

But when it comes to your freedom to shoot a kid in the face?

I gotta step up.

No..you can't shoot kids in the face.

 

[Sallow]

I'm not missing anything. What are you missing?

The founders would never have created a document that would enslave people, since they fought that very thing?

They did not say in the second amendment


That actually believe it or not said.



And well regulated does not mean regulated by the government, Historically speaking it means as expected in working order.

The Constitution does not have a amendment, clause, word or letter that allows for armed rebellion.

And..it does have several clauses that allows the government to squash them.

Like they did in the Whiskey rebellion.

Like they did in the Civil War.

All enemies foreign and domestic sums it up for me.

Yep.

Check the constitution.

The Congress can call forth the militia to suppress insurrection.

The Constitution does NOT ALLOW A MILITIA NOT UNDER CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL TO ATTACK THE GOVERNMENT.

Got it?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What part are you missing?

The constitution specifically states..and in CLEAR ENGLISH, that they are under congressional control.

The constitution makes no mention of an "unorganized" militia.

None.

Nadda.

I'm not missing anything. What are you missing?

The founders would never have created a document that would enslave people, since they fought that very thing?

They did not say in the second amendment


That actually believe it or not said.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

And well regulated does not mean regulated by the government, Historically speaking it means as expected in working order.

The Constitution does not have a amendment, clause, word or letter that allows for armed rebellion.

And..it does have several clauses that allows the government to squash them.

Like they did in the Whiskey rebellion.

Like they did in the Civil War.

However the second amendment does have "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in fringed." That is if you're wanting to be specific on what words the Constitution has and does not have.

So yes the constitution does authorize overthrowing a tyrannical government by means of the second amendment.

 

[tjvh]

Rebuttal to what?

You folks are insane.

Seriously so.

Insane because we believe we have the Right to protect our Freedoms from utopian dreaming progressive idiots like yourself. You're the exact person nobody needs to be telling others what freedoms they may, or may not be allowed to exercise... Seriously so.

This is laughable..since it's folks like yourself that regulate all sorts of freedoms.

Like free speech.
Like the freedom to express your religious beliefs.
Like the freedom to vote.

But when it comes to your freedom to shoot a kid in the face?

I gotta step up.

No..you can't shoot kids in the face.

Again... Who the fuck is advocating shooting kids in the face? Have you been drinking? My argument is about protecting our Freedoms from idiots who want to trample upon them.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Rebuttal to what?

You folks are insane.

Seriously so.

Insane because we believe we have the Right to protect our Freedoms from utopian dreaming progressive idiots like yourself. You're the exact person nobody needs to be telling others what freedoms they may, or may not be allowed to exercise... Seriously so.

This is laughable..since it's folks like yourself that regulate all sorts of freedoms.

Like free speech.
Like the freedom to express your religious beliefs.
Like the freedom to vote.

But when it comes to your freedom to shoot a kid in the face?

I gotta step up.

No..you can't shoot kids in the face.

Please show me in the first amendment where it says the right to free speech shall not be infringed.

 

[tjvh]

The Constitution does not have a amendment, clause, word or letter that allows for armed rebellion.

And..it does have several clauses that allows the government to squash them.

Like they did in the Whiskey rebellion.

Like they did in the Civil War.

All enemies foreign and domestic sums it up for me.

Yep.

Check the constitution.

The Congress can call forth the militia to suppress insurrection.

The Constitution does NOT ALLOW A MILITIA NOT UNDER CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL TO ATTACK THE GOVERNMENT.

Got it?

Maybe you should read it without the assistance of your ideological glasses... Because you have completely missed the premise of the Second Amendment, and why it was written.

 

[Sallow]

I'm not missing anything. What are you missing?

The founders would never have created a document that would enslave people, since they fought that very thing?

They did not say in the second amendment


That actually believe it or not said.



And well regulated does not mean regulated by the government, Historically speaking it means as expected in working order.

The Constitution does not have a amendment, clause, word or letter that allows for armed rebellion.

And..it does have several clauses that allows the government to squash them.

Like they did in the Whiskey rebellion.

Like they did in the Civil War.

However the second amendment does have "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in fringed." That is if you're wanting to be specific on what words the Constitution has and does not have.

So yes the constitution does authorize overthrowing a tyrannical government by means of the second amendment.

It absolutely does not.

And if you and the other boys in your group playing army ever try it..you'd find that out pretty quickly.

 

[midcan5]

Thirty rounds makes mass murder easier, a psychopath's words hint at why the NRA and the paid stooges in Congress are wrong about regulation.

from p.280 'Columbine' by Dave Cullen [bold added]

"Eric manufactured three more pipe bombs: the Charlie batch. Then he halted production until December. What he needed was guns. And that was becoming a problem.

Eric had been looking into the Brady Bill. Congress had passed the law restricting the purchase of most popular semiautomatic machine guns in 1993. A federal system of instant background checks would soon go into effect. Eric was going to have a hard time getting around that.

"Fuck you Brady!" Eric wrote in his journal. All he wanted was a couple of guns - "and thanks to your fucking bill I will probably not get any!" He wanted them only for personal protection, he joked: "Its not like I'm some psycho who would go on a shooting spree. fuckers."

Eric frequently made his research do double duty for both schoolwork and his master plan. He wrote up a short research assignment on the Brady Bill that week. It was a good idea in theory, he said, aside from the loopholes. The biggest problem was that checks applied only to licensed dealers, not private dealers. So two-thirds of the licensed dealers had just gone private. "The FBI just shot themselves in the foot," he concluded."[/b]

Eric was rational about his firepower. "As of this date I have enough explosives to kill about 100 people," he wrote. With axes, bayonets, and assorted blades, he could maybe take out ten more. That was as far as hand to-hand combat would get him. A hundred and ten people. "that just isn't enough!"

"Guns!" the entry concluded. "I need guns! Give me some fucking firearms! "

http://www.usmessageboard.com/current-events/267838-fuck-you-guns-post6599617.html

 

[Sallow]

All enemies foreign and domestic sums it up for me.

Yep.

Check the constitution.

The Congress can call forth the militia to suppress insurrection.

The Constitution does NOT ALLOW A MILITIA NOT UNDER CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL TO ATTACK THE GOVERNMENT.

Got it?

Maybe you should read it without the assistance of your ideological glasses... Because you have completely missed the premise of the Second Amendment, and why it was written.

No..I am reading it without YOUR ideological glass and in clear text.

And in context.

There is NOTHING and I mean nothing..either implied or explicit that allows for armed rebellion.

That's what you folks project into it..because of your hatred for America and Americans.

You postulate you can shoot folks you don't like..and it's constitutional.

It's not.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The Constitution does not have a amendment, clause, word or letter that allows for armed rebellion.

And..it does have several clauses that allows the government to squash them.

Like they did in the Whiskey rebellion.

Like they did in the Civil War.

However the second amendment does have "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in fringed." That is if you're wanting to be specific on what words the Constitution has and does not have.

So yes the constitution does authorize overthrowing a tyrannical government by means of the second amendment.

It absolutely does not.

And if you and the other boys in your group playing army ever try it..you'd find that out pretty quickly.

Do you understand what you support when you say the second amendment is not for over throwing a tyrannical government?

 

[tjvh]

Yep.

Check the constitution.

The Congress can call forth the militia to suppress insurrection.

The Constitution does NOT ALLOW A MILITIA NOT UNDER CONGRESSIONAL CONTROL TO ATTACK THE GOVERNMENT.

Got it?

Maybe you should read it without the assistance of your ideological glasses... Because you have completely missed the premise of the Second Amendment, and why it was written.

No..I am reading it without YOUR ideological glass and in clear text.

And in context.

There is NOTHING and I mean nothing..either implied or explicit that allows for armed rebellion.

That's what you folks project into it..because of your hatred for America and Americans.

You postulate you can shoot folks you don't like..and it's constitutional.

It's not.

Not armed rebellion... Power in the hands of the people so that tyrannical out of control Governments think twice before pulling a Hitler on the American people.

 

[Sallow]

However the second amendment does have "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be in fringed." That is if you're wanting to be specific on what words the Constitution has and does not have.

So yes the constitution does authorize overthrowing a tyrannical government by means of the second amendment.

It absolutely does not.

And if you and the other boys in your group playing army ever try it..you'd find that out pretty quickly.

Do you understand what you support when you say the second amendment is not for over throwing a tyrannical government?

Yep.

Sure do.

Like when the south got it's ass kicked..you know...when they tried to over throw a tyrannical government bent on restricting their "right" to own other human beings.

 

[Sallow]

Maybe you should read it without the assistance of your ideological glasses... Because you have completely missed the premise of the Second Amendment, and why it was written.

No..I am reading it without YOUR ideological glass and in clear text.

And in context.

There is NOTHING and I mean nothing..either implied or explicit that allows for armed rebellion.

That's what you folks project into it..because of your hatred for America and Americans.

You postulate you can shoot folks you don't like..and it's constitutional.

It's not.

Not armed rebellion... Power in the hands of the people so that tyrannical out of control Governments think twice before pulling a Hitler on the American people.

Generally when you folks start talking like that..you wind up shooting people that have nothing to do with Hitler or Tyrannical governments.

Unless you count that cops that come to pick up you guys up.

Which reminds me of a funny story my cousin told me about his gun nut friend that moved to Nevada or something.

He got drunk one night and exercised his gun right to shoot up his house. When his girlfriend protested he took a couple of potshots at her. She ran away, called his pop and then the cops. His pop was an ex cop..and called the police chief asking them to spare his son's life. They did..but they had to shoot up his legs to do so. The guy spent 8 years in jail..but was thankful his pop did that for him.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

It absolutely does not.

And if you and the other boys in your group playing army ever try it..you'd find that out pretty quickly.

Do you understand what you support when you say the second amendment is not for over throwing a tyrannical government?

Yep.

Sure do.

Like when the south got it's ass kicked..you know...when they tried to over throw a tyrannical government bent on restricting their "right" to own other human beings.

Deflection doesn't win any arguments.
One more time Do you understand what you are defending when you say Americans do not have a right to overthrow a tyrannical government?

 

[Sallow]

Do you understand what you support when you say the second amendment is not for over throwing a tyrannical government?

Yep.

Sure do.

Like when the south got it's ass kicked..you know...when they tried to over throw a tyrannical government bent on restricting their "right" to own other human beings.

Deflection doesn't win any arguments.
One more time Do you understand what you are defending when you say Americans do not have a right to overthrow a tyrannical government?

It's not deflection..it's history.

And it would repeat if you and your boys try it.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yep.

Sure do.

Like when the south got it's ass kicked..you know...when they tried to over throw a tyrannical government bent on restricting their "right" to own other human beings.

Deflection doesn't win any arguments.
One more time Do you understand what you are defending when you say Americans do not have a right to overthrow a tyrannical government?

It's not deflection..it's history.

And it would repeat if you and your boys try it.

<Sigh>
Deflection
So with you dictatorships are fine as long as it's a democrats? or just dictators in general?
Or dictatorships are OK with you because you think they can't be beaten?
Exactly why do you support a dictatorship?

And I will remind you Asymmetric warfare always wins the war.

 

[Sallow]

Deflection doesn't win any arguments.
One more time Do you understand what you are defending when you say Americans do not have a right to overthrow a tyrannical government?

It's not deflection..it's history.

And it would repeat if you and your boys try it.

<Sigh>
Deflection
So with you dictatorships are fine as long as it's a democrats? or just dictators in general?
Or dictatorships are OK with you because you think they can't be beaten?
Exactly why do you support a dictatorship?

And I will remind you Asymmetric warfare always wins the war.

We are not anywhere close to a dictatorship.

But it's funny you folks were happy when Bush was chipping away indivdual's rights..then got pissed when the new powers he appointed himself landed in Obama's lap.

Least he says he ain't going to torture anyone.

But he didn't make it illegal.

Not that you folks care about that stuff.