USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
He is one of the reasons companies have to put signs on items, like irons, buckets, ladders, etc, to protect them from themselves.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Question on guns
- Thread starter Mr.Badguy
- Start date
He is one of the reasons companies have to put signs on items, like irons, buckets, ladders, etc, to protect them from themselves.
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
Felons lose their rights per Amendment 5. The mentally defunct too, are deprived of their rights via Due Process. Minors are not capable of understanding their rights, thus they cannot exercise them. That's why they cannot consent.
Barstool Billy makes an excellent point.
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
does it say the 'right of the well regulated militia'??????? didn't think so.
One of your most salient points on the matter. I'm going to ruminate on this...
Cancel 2018.2
Oh, hi
Where does the Constitution say felons gave up their rights when they chose to commit crimes? They don't give up any of the rights in the Bill of Rights except the 2nd. Even the 2nd does not take away the rights of felons to own guns---that is only done by government regulation (along with numerous other gun regulations). They still have free speech, press, religion.......
Shite, another good point. Inmates file numerous 8th Amendment violation claims. However, their 1st amendment right s are indeed regulated and restricted in prison.
I should peruse the GP section more often.
You cannot follow a train of thought. Transportation is a need. Guns are not. Guns are designed to kill people. Cars are not. Your arguments are off in space.Following your "train of thought"; are you suggesting that all drivers drive the speed limit, stop at stop lights and stop at stop signs?
You cannot follow a train of thought. Transportation is a need. Guns are not. Guns are designed to kill people. Cars are not. Your arguments are off in space.
The same point I've made over and over, but it fails to sink in with the barrel-strokers.
Western society cannot function without vehicles. Plenty of western societies do quite well without firearms. Their democracies are not falling apart. No anarchy. No revolutions. No tyrannical government taking over. Merely a much lower incidence of gun deaths.
It's that simple. Apparently, still to complicated for them.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
You cannot follow a train of thought. Transportation is a need. Guns are not. Guns are designed to kill people. Cars are not. Your arguments are off in space.
the framers and founders disagree with you. i'll believe them over you. if guns aren't necessary, prohibit the government from ever possessing or using them first. you do that, maybe i'll consider it.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
The same point I've made over and over, but it fails to sink in with the barrel-strokers.
Western society cannot function without vehicles. Plenty of western societies do quite well without firearms. Their democracies are not falling apart. No anarchy. No revolutions. No tyrannical government taking over. Merely a much lower incidence of gun deaths.
It's that simple. Apparently, still to complicated for them.
i ask again, fuckwit, is driving a vehicle a RIGHT or not? is owning and carrying a gun a RIGHT or not? are you not smart enough to answer these questions?
the framers and founders disagree with you. i'll believe them over you. if guns aren't necessary, prohibit the government from ever possessing or using them first. you do that, maybe i'll consider it.
Gun nuts think they will save us from a out of control government. How fucking dumb is that? Back before 1800 guns were needed for hunting. It made sense to permit them. It is how many fed their families. I suppose you can go to Kroger and shoot the meat department . Almost nobody denies rural people from hunting. We just object to weapons who are designed to kill people. We don't want to be their prey. look at the mass shootings and tell me again that guns make us safer.
If you go through the process, with includes training and licensing, you have a right to drive. To take it away, they have to take you to court.i ask again, fuckwit, is driving a vehicle a RIGHT or not? is owning and carrying a gun a RIGHT or not? are you not smart enough to answer these questions?
Sure driving is a right. Gun ownership should require taking classes and being licensed. We let too many nuts have guns because politicians cave to the NRA. The NRA want to keep their rights to SELL them. They don't care about the carnage.
If you go through the process, with includes training and licensing, you have a right to drive. To take it away, they have to take you to court.
Sure driving is a right. Gun ownership should require taking classes and being licensed. We let too many nuts have guns because politicians cave to the NRA. The NRA want to keep their rights to SELL them. They don't care about the carnage.
The NRA would love nothing more than requiring gun training since many of those are NRA sponsored classes. Politicians are afraid of the voters who object to unnecessary gun laws, not the NRA that really has no power over those politicians as long as the voters support and vote for them.
Driving is not a right but a freedom that can be easily restricted through administrative or legislative action.
What gun laws would have prevented any of the killing sprees that occurred? The church shooting in Texas occurred despite laws prohibiting the shooter from obtaining a weapon but obviously did not work.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
Gun nuts think they will save us from a out of control government. How fucking dumb is that? Back before 1800 guns were needed for hunting. It made sense to permit them. It is how many fed their families. I suppose you can go to Kroger and shoot the meat department . Almost nobody denies rural people from hunting. We just object to weapons who are designed to kill people. We don't want to be their prey. look at the mass shootings and tell me again that guns make us safer.
1. take them away from government first,
2. disagree with the founders all you want to, but the end result is that there are 90 million gun owners and only 5 million military and law enforcement........nuff said.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
If you go through the process, with includes training and licensing, you have a right to drive. To take it away, they have to take you to court.
Sure driving is a right. Gun ownership should require taking classes and being licensed. We let too many nuts have guns because politicians cave to the NRA. The NRA want to keep their rights to SELL them. They don't care about the carnage.
A state may not impose a charge for the enjoyment of a right granted by the federal constitution... The power to impose a license tax on the exercise of these freedoms is indeed as potent as the power of censorship which this Court has repeatedly struck down... a person cannot be compelled 'to purchase, through a license fee or a license tax, the privilege freely granted by the constitution.' —MURDOCK V. PENNSYLVANIA 319 US 105 (1942)
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You cannot follow a train of thought. Transportation is a need. Guns are not. Guns are designed to kill people. Cars are not. Your arguments are off in space.
But guns are a need or how else are to defend against all enemies, foreign and domestic and I thought we were discussing something different; because with all the regulations and laws, drivers are still killing people and since more people are dying from car accidents, shouldn't we be concentrating on the bigger threat to society.
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
Gun nuts think they will save us from a out of control government. How fucking dumb is that? Back before 1800 guns were needed for hunting. It made sense to permit them. It is how many fed their families. I suppose you can go to Kroger and shoot the meat department . Almost nobody denies rural people from hunting. We just object to weapons who are designed to kill people. We don't want to be their prey. look at the mass shootings and tell me again that guns make us safer.
I wasn't aware that the 2nd Amendment addressed hunting.
Can you post the part you're referring to?
I wasn't aware that the 2nd Amendment addressed hunting.
Can you post the part you're referring to?
You are not aware of much. What did it say about semi automatic weapons? The constitution was written in thew 1750s. It is obsolete and unspoken in many categories that did not exist back then. So, since hunting was not specifically addressed, then it is illegal?
USFREEDOM911
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN
You are not aware of much. What did it say about semi automatic weapons? The constitution was written in thew 1750s. It is obsolete and unspoken in many categories that did not exist back then. So, since hunting was not specifically addressed, then it is illegal?
It address the RIGHT to bear arms and I didn't see anything that address HOW they were to be used.
Does your logic now mean that since the 1st Amendment doesn't address the internet, that it's now illegal?
If you go through the process, with includes training and licensing, you have a right to drive. To take it away, they have to take you to court.
Sure driving is a right. Gun ownership should require taking classes and being licensed. We let too many nuts have guns because politicians cave to the NRA. The NRA want to keep their rights to SELL them. They don't care about the carnage.
Driving is not a right. It's a privilege.
There are as many, if not more, killed in wrecks as with guns.
In my State, in order to carry a gun on me, I had to take a class and, in a manner of speaking, get a license. It's called a CWP. Funny thing, while not hard to pass, it was more educational and challenging than the written or driving test I had to pass to get my driver's license.
SmarterthanYou
rebel
You are not aware of much. What did it say about semi automatic weapons? The constitution was written in thew 1750s. It is obsolete and unspoken in many categories that did not exist back then. So, since hunting was not specifically addressed, then it is illegal?
the framers and citizens of the new free colonies knew all about technology and it's growth in the world. it's why they wrote ARMS and not muskets. I'm also highly bemused that morons like to think that since 'hunting' isn't mentioned in the constitution, that it can be regulated, or even prohibited, since it's basically saying that they can starve people by not letting them hunt for food.
I swear, some of you people actually are BEGGING for slavery. it's ridiculous
1. take them away from government first,
2. disagree with the founders all you want to, but the end result is that there are 90 million gun owners and only 5 million military and law enforcement........nuff said.
Not enough said. If you think the people can stand up to the military and their weaponry, you are nuts. Nuff said. Worse, you think there is a need. That is scary and says a lot about you and your thinking processes.
The government is charged with keeping us safe from invasion. It is not gun nuts who have some distorted mental picture of their great prowess with weapons and military tactics.