>>>-----The Gun Issue Middle----->

SmarterthanYou said:
this would entirely depend on the constitution of that state, and I encourage you to attempt to repeal it. you can start by supporting the unlimited right. please document or cite where gun control is promoted by any founder.
Click to expand...

But, that's the thing, your reading of it is a joke. You are detached from reality and live in some sort of fantasy world. Not even the justices that have recently ruled to strenthen protection of the second read it the way you do.

There is not much need for thoughts about laser guns. Gun toting robots will be here very soon. There will be limits on them and the courts will NEVER read the second as permitting an unlimited right to own weapons. If they do, then I would expect there will soon be political support for repeal/replacement of the second.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Yes; because force fields will also have been invented and therefore they will protect the buildings from being sliced through by those silly little hand held lazor's.
Click to expand...

Are you compairing citizens with guns to force fields? lol

I like where you are going with force fields because my line of thinking is problem prevention, not "If you massacre a group of people I will shoot you"
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I am not an NRA member. this is how you fail. and amending the constitution is supposed to be difficult for the very reason you mentioned. to avoid irrational and fear based cowardice.
Click to expand...

So my opinion is fear based?

Let me get this straight. Crazy people are using these SPECIFIC arms to massacre people, it's already happened and the facts are out there. But you say we can't regulate those SPECIFIC arms because you think you may need them to overthrow your government. Who sounds more scared and more reasonable in that. Right....

If you read the OP then you know I am not saying to take away guns. I'm saying to regulate magazine size. This is not unconstitutional. You are arguing from the perspective that I said we need to grab guns and that isn't the case kiddo.
 
Anti-Party said:
Are you compairing citizens with guns to force fields? lol

I like where you are going with force fields because my line of thinking is problem prevention, not "If you massacre a group of people I will shoot you"
Click to expand...

How you came to the conclusion that I was comparing force fields to citizens with guns. os beyond me.
I was comparing your dream of lazor's cutting down buildings and I was projecting that there would be forcefields protecting the buildings.
 
Anti-Party said:
So my opinion is fear based?

Let me get this straight. Crazy people are using these SPECIFIC arms to massacre people, it's already happened and the facts are out there. But you say we can't regulate those SPECIFIC arms because you think you may need them to overthrow your government. Who sounds more scared and more reasonable in that. Right....

If you read the OP then you know I am not saying to take away guns. I'm saying to regulate magazine size. This is not unconstitutional. You are arguing from the perspective that I said we need to grab guns and that isn't the case kiddo.
Click to expand...

Are you also for the regulating of hammers, axes, knives, gas, and other items that have been used to massacre people?

And; before you get carried away on the word "massacre", you might want to read this:

Definition of MASSACRE
1: the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty
2: a cruel or wanton murder

Since yesterday's football game, was a MASSACRE, should Alabama football players regulated as to their ability, size, number of, etc?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
Are you also for the regulating of hammers, axes, knives, gas, and other items that have been used to massacre people?

And; before you get carried away on the word "massacre", you might want to read this:

Definition of MASSACRE
1: the act or an instance of killing a number of usually helpless or unresisting human beings under circumstances of atrocity or cruelty
2: a cruel or wanton murder

Since yesterday's football game, was a MASSACRE, should Alabama football players regulated as to their ability, size, number of, etc?
Click to expand...

Simple minded strawman argument. Were hammers, axes, knives, gas etc created for the sole purpose of killing? Are they weapons? NRA parrots are funny when they try to compare a hammer with a Modified Assault Rifle 100 round drum magazine.
 
Anti-Party said:
Simple minded strawman argument. Were hammers, axes, knives, gas etc created for the sole purpose of killing? Are they weapons? NRA parrots are funny when they try to compare a hammer with a Modified Assault Rifle 100 round drum magazine.
Click to expand...

So the only time a "Modified Assault Rifle", with a 100 round drum is used, is for the sole purpose of killing?
 
SuperstringTheory said:
But, that's the thing, your reading of it is a joke. You are detached from reality and live in some sort of fantasy world. Not even the justices that have recently ruled to strenthen protection of the second read it the way you do.

There is not much need for thoughts about laser guns. Gun toting robots will be here very soon. There will be limits on them and the courts will NEVER read the second as permitting an unlimited right to own weapons. If they do, then I would expect there will soon be political support for repeal/replacement of the second.
Click to expand...
that is because the courts are full of statists as well. open your eyes. you sheeple surrendered your freedom and power to the government, do you see them ever giving it back??????
 
Anti-Party said:
So my opinion is fear based?

Let me get this straight. Crazy people are using these SPECIFIC arms to massacre people, it's already happened and the facts are out there. But you say we can't regulate those SPECIFIC arms because you think you may need them to overthrow your government. Who sounds more scared and more reasonable in that. Right....
Click to expand...
anyone who has seen the mission creep and authoritarian legislation over the last 30 years and ISN'T afraid of the government is too stupid to be allowed out of the womb.

Anti-Party said:
If you read the OP then you know I am not saying to take away guns. I'm saying to regulate magazine size. This is not unconstitutional. You are arguing from the perspective that I said we need to grab guns and that isn't the case kiddo.
Click to expand...
tyranny is that which the government can do, but the people are prohibited from doing.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
that is because the courts are full of statists as well. open your eyes. you sheeple surrendered your freedom and power to the government, do you see them ever giving it back??????
Click to expand...

There is no them only us. When the courts strike down a law they are most often acting AGAINST the will of the people. That is necessary and often good. But if people are overwhelmingly opposed to a position then the courts can't stand in the way even if they are morally justified. They will get overturned.

You hold way too many idiotic ideas about the absolute righteousness of your position.
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
That wasn't what you originally said, so would you please respond to the question; instead of the knee jerk that the question caused?
Click to expand...

The other use for the gun is sport and I respect that. That is why I say we shouldn't gun grab but you clearly didn't read the post.

Now I would like for you or anyone to tell me why a 100 round drum is more necessary than a 30 round drum. ANYONE.. Again I can make a great argument for why we should have a limit but no one has been able to give me any argument why they are necessary.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
anyone who has seen the mission creep and authoritarian legislation over the last 30 years and ISN'T afraid of the government is too stupid to be allowed out of the womb.

tyranny is that which the government can do, but the people are prohibited from doing.
Click to expand...

Look, it's clear your brain is locked up tight from the Fox News brainwash. Your definition of freedom is not freedom at all. Your definition of tyranny is not even close. When you have to modify definitions to suit your political standing, you are probably wrong. More here on your brainwashing source; http://truth-out.org/news/item/1964:fourteen-propaganda-techniques-fox-news-uses-to-brainwash-americans
 
SmarterthanYou said:
the framers were well aware that technology could and would advance, they even specified that citizens could own warships. your argument is weightless.

wrong.

your definition of freedom is wrong.

your failure is not acknowledging how the framers defined the 2nd Amendment. this is not my failure. it makes zero sense to believe that the framers intended for the government to have power over the arms of the people, especially considering that it was the attempted confiscation of arms that started the war for independence.
Click to expand...

Still waiting for you to produce that text that says our founding fathers exclaimed, "We should have the right to own warships" lol You didn't make that up did you? That would be the FIRST TIME EVER IN HISTORY someone from the Right made something up to gain more weight in a political argument.
 
Anti-Party said:
The other use for the gun is sport and I respect that. That is why I say we shouldn't gun grab but you clearly didn't read the post.

Now I would like for you or anyone to tell me why a 100 round drum is more necessary than a 30 round drum. ANYONE.. Again I can make a great argument for why we should have a limit but no one has been able to give me any argument why they are necessary.
Click to expand...

What part of your post do you feel that I didn't read?

USFREEDOM911 said:
So the only time a "Modified Assault Rifle", with a 100 round drum is used, is for the sole purpose of killing?
Click to expand...

Anti-Party said:
Nope. But that IS what it was designed for.....wasn't it. But nice try.
Click to expand...

Since when does anyone have to "justify" having something that is legal?

Why do you drive a vehicle that can go faster then 65 mph?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
What part of your post do you feel that I didn't read?





Since when does anyone have to "justify" having something that is legal?

Why do you drive a vehicle that can go faster then 65 mph?
Click to expand...

Modified Assault Rifles are guns manufactured to kill masses of people fast and efficiently in combat. They were only modified for civilian use after Bush declared them ok under certain conditions, because Bush was an awesome president.

If you don't see danger difference between a hammer and a modified assault rifle with a 100 round drum, you are 100% brainwashed by the NRA purchased Right Wing.

"Hammer........................................War gun...............................I don't understand the difference" says the smart people.
 
Anti-Party said:
Modified Assault Rifles are guns manufactured to kill masses of people fast and efficiently in combat. They were only modified for civilian use after Bush declared them ok under certain conditions, because Bush was an awesome president.

If you don't see danger difference between a hammer and a modified assault rifle with a 100 round drum, you are 100% brainwashed by the NRA purchased Right Wing.

"Hammer........................................War gun...............................I don't understand the difference" says the smart people.
Click to expand...

But that's not the only reason they're used and you keep ignoring that.
Why do you keep ignoring that?
 
USFREEDOM911 said:
But that's not the only reason they're used and you keep ignoring that.
Why do you keep ignoring that?
Click to expand...

I could get a tank and use it's tracks to plow my garden. <---Braindead justification process.

The fact is you can't tell me why they are NECESSARY except if you need them to start a war if they try to take THEM. Or you think you need them because you are brainwashed by Fox News and think Obama is a dictator hell bent on killing us all. And to that..

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top