Thanks for the acknowledgement. We can move on and I have nothing to add to this thread anyone would find interesting.
Good thing this 80 year old had a weapon
- Thread starter rog1187
- Start date
Pretty sure it was an off duty officer responding to a man in the street waving a gun. Gunfire broke out and he was hit by friendly fire killing him. That's the one I was talking about.
They both are anti-gun. Please provide any quote where either is for guns? They both support every gun control measure.
Pelosi has stated that the NRA needs to realize that gun control is inevitible.
Feinstein said to a Senate Judiciary committee on gun control "If I could have banned them all -- 'Mr. and Mrs. America turn in your guns' -- I would have!"
Funny how you love to use google when you get the results you want, but when it doesn't look good for you you act like there is a 50 dollar charge per search.
No, the burden was on you (really rog, the OP) since he made the statement that "some want to take away your guns". If you make a claim, you should be bale to back it up with some evidence, such as a link, to prove your point.
Ok, wait for it, goal lines are about to change. It started off with name one person, then turned into 1 politician, now it will be 1 politician elected in the last 3 elections who has brown hair and is a member of x committee and drives across a bridge to work on daily basis and has green eyes.
Oh you can't find one? Pfffft, GOP is nothing but a bunch of crazy kooks who think people want to take your guns.
Briefly, it is my belief that the constitution is a living, breathing document that is crucial to our country. With that being said, the second is not relevant to today's society with the militia clause. And all the various interpretations of the amendment has led to confusion and other laws that are also problematic. Worse of all, it has led to an organization that preys on the ignorance and emotions of citizens for political benefits and I despise that.
I would like it clearer that will protect the legal ownership of guns for self defense and recreational/hunting while eliminating the ownership of certain military weapons from the general population that serves no purpose other than to kill humans quickly. Also, I think the selling of guns need to be addressed but I'm not smart enough to articulate a stated opinion myself.
No. It's really very simple. Quote a politician, with a link and not a fake quote, saying they want to take your guns, just like the OP stated. We've heard it for seven years now how Obama was coming after our guns.
I don't care if Joe Blow wants to take my guns, he'll get blown away trying to do so.
And you are correct, a lot of the GOP are crazy kooks that think people want to take their guns.
Okay I get where you're coming from - two questions as the devil's advocate - 1) why isn't the militia clause relevant in today's society and 2) how would you define a military weapon (you may have answered that one before but I can't remember)?
Ah yes - different case indeed. That was the young man bent on suicide by police and his two brothers went along to video the action. He started throwing random shots at the police station, and when the undercover officer came out to respond one of his fellow officers mistook him for the shooter and killed him. The three brothers have all been charged with second degree murder.
It is actually a document that is fixed in writing that is not too difficult to understand. There are also written instructions specifying how to change it. If it is living, breathing, why have one if it is pliable enough to accommodate every situation. It is true that liberal justices have accepted a roll of writing law, which was never given to them.
No one ever said it should accomodate every situation. But the fact that we have 27 ratified amendments suggests that times do change and the document needs occasional tweaking.
dumbasses won't ever understand. I've tried and will never try again. I hope you have better luck.
Not bru, but 1) is not difficult: We no longer rely on every male between 16 and 60 running to an assembly point for our national defense -- we spend many times the GDP of several large countries on our standing military forces. And no, "Red Dawn" would not happen, no matter how much some might wish it. 2) is a bit more problematic, but military weapons can be defined as those manufactured for the use of said military forces. The first gun control laws (outside of local ordinances forbidding open or concealed carry in the 19th Century) were passed to prohibit private ownership of B.A.Rs, and nobody much complained about those.
And it is written how those amendments were proposed and acted upon. Can you offer an amendment that was passed by majority rule of the 9 judges?
Last edited:
The others do understand and are not arrogant bastards who suggest it is changeable as frivolously as you suggest. I thought Bud was the dumb *** in the family who failed law school. But I see you have potential.
Let's talk about #2 first - the picture below represents the most common used weapons in crimes in one of the most violent cities in the nation - which ones are to be defined as military?
I did. I never made a claim that I didnt back up. I answered your questions and you dont like being wrong again. This is the part where you run away for a few hours and hope everyone forgets.
And he is so forgettable. The little dip-**** wants so hard to be a participant that he confuses himself.
I think the national statistic is that pistols account for 90% of gun deaths, military style assault rifles account for less than 5% and then shotguns/regular long guns the other 5%.Let's talk about #2 first - the picture below represents the most common used weapons in crimes in one of the most violent cities in the nation - which ones are to be defined as military?
Whats that mean? Clearly the military style assault rifles need to go. They are scary.
It's not the end of the world if I'm wrong every now and then, it doesn't happen very often. If you can provide a link showing where a politician ever said "let's ban guns", I'll be glad to admit I am wrong. But you still haven't done so.
You asked for just one name. Then you wanted a politicians name. Then you wanted a quote but now you need a link. Here is your link.
www.google.com
Maybe you are not wrong often. Maybe only here. Its plausible.
from Meet the Press, which is featured on Bernie Sanders’ YouTube channel, he said, “Nobody should have a gun who has a criminal background, who’s involved in domestic abuse situations. People should not have guns who are going to hurt other people, who are unstable. And second of all I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America, and we have a huge loophole now with gun shows that should be eliminated.”
http://truthinmedia.com/bernie-sand...-that-would-outlaw-all-self-defense-firearms/
Who, in their right mind, believes people with criminal backgrounds should have guns?
Who, in their right mind, believes people with mental disease or defect should have guns?
Who, in their right mind, believes domestic abusers should have guns?
All of these are very common sense approaches to solving problems.
Once again, you guys have failed miserably to provide a link showing where any politician has said "let's take away their guns". (The fake quote doesn't count). I always thought the NRA went too far in their advertisements when they try to get voters to vote against certain candidates because they claim those candidates are going to take away your guns and have entered the realm of the absurd and thought, who in the world really believes their nonsense. This board answers that question.
Who, in their right mind, believes people with mental disease or defect should have guns?
Who, in their right mind, believes domestic abusers should have guns?
All of these are very common sense approaches to solving problems.
Once again, you guys have failed miserably to provide a link showing where any politician has said "let's take away their guns". (The fake quote doesn't count). I always thought the NRA went too far in their advertisements when they try to get voters to vote against certain candidates because they claim those candidates are going to take away your guns and have entered the realm of the absurd and thought, who in the world really believes their nonsense. This board answers that question.
"military style" ... I had a semi-automatic .22 that I used at my uncle's farm when I was a teen. However, it was shaped like a regular rifle. Functionally it was no different that these "military style assault rifles".
I don't get it.
I'm wasn't talking about those specific instances - but Bernie did say this - "I believe that we need to make sure that certain types of guns used to kill people, exclusively, not for hunting, they should not be sold in the United States of America, and we have a huge loophole now with gun shows that should be eliminated.”
And I agree with that. That's common sense. What about magazine size? Is there any legitimate need for a 30-round magazine? It makes it easier to kill a lot of people very quickly.
Three things
1. There's your proof that a politician wants to ban guns.
2. I own semi-autos...I don't plan on using them to harm or kill people. They can be used to hunt animals.
3. A well-trained individual can kill just as many people with a 10 round magazine...especially if the victims are cowering inside a room because there were no armed people there to protect them.
By the way a great majority of the guns used in crimes are handguns....non that I know of have a 30 round magazine.
He doesn't want to ban all guns, just certain types, so just stop with the charade. I hunt deer and I don't need a 30-round magazine. You have to agree that in a large crowd of people, a killer would be more effective with a 30-round magazine than changing out 10-round magazines.
I see you keep moving the goalposts - he wants to ban guns and makes some arbitrary delineation on which ones would make the cut.
How many guns with 30-round magazines are used in the commission of a crime in the US?
Who will be the one called upon to provide verification? Who was OP of the 30 round concept? Will we be advised to do our own research? Funny how some rules from the blue prove worthwhile.
I'm not moving any goalposts, here is your original post:
The shooter at Sandy Hook Elementary used 30-round magazines in the AR-15. That ONE incident was enough. He killed 20 elementary students between the ages of 6 and 7 years old and he killed 6 staff members. Let that sink in.
I said some want to take guns away from people - and I then provided a link (at your request) showing a politician saying as much.
More people are killed with handguns that cannot accommodate a 30-round magazine...the VT shooter used all handguns I believe and killed more people.
Wrong. It is proof you are a moron and can't comprehend english without twisting an interpretation to fit your brainwashed agenda.
1) Regardless of the likely hood of a "Red Dawn" or not. The foundation of our country is the ability of the people to speak out against that country and the 2nd amendment protects that foundation.
2) BAR's were not banned because of Joe Blow ownership. The NFA of '34 was in response to organized crime and their use of the weapons. And to this day maintains some idiotic restrictions, such as suppressors.
But ANY weapon can be used and designed for use by Military Forces. Look at the M40's. Bolt action sniper rifles.... do we ban them? And based on what? Cosmetics?
Sure... that extra 2 to 3 seconds is going to make a world of difference. I know... let's limit people to revolvers....
People need to learn it's not about "Need" when it comes to round count, magazine size, gun action, etc. It's about "Right". You're a hunter. Great for you. You may be one shot one kill bad ***. I don't hunt anymore, but I do recreationally and competitively shoot, so I should be able to exercise my "Right" to enjoy my sport legally.
Very very few. But don't let truth get in the way of paranoia.
It's funny how the left likes to point to the right's paranoia of "They're coming to take our guns" with their own paranoia.