Sick Gun Grabbers want all gun owners insured

Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Once again you keep trying to pass of NRA paranoia, supposition and conjecture as fact. For the last 30 years or so, the NRA and it's parrot along with the weapons manufacturers pundits have been wailing propaganda of a nefarious plot to "grab" guns from Americans as a prelude to some sort of communist takeover. This was to be facilitated by UN troops using a hit list of registered gun owners.....the EXACT details as to how this would be done have always been murky at best.
Well, in my lifetime NO legislation has ever been proposed in Congress or the Senate to confiscate legally owned weapons from law abiding citizens. That is NOT gun control. Gun control is NOT having any yahoo roaming the streets with a concealed weapon, much less crossing any state border with said weapon. Gun control is NOT having any schmuck with a driver's license and cash buy any type of weapon they want with no questions asked.

To date, you've provided NOTHING that validates your use of the term "gun grabbers" in your subject title. And again, I ask what is it about a background check that scares you so much? Scared you might not pass?


Taichi, You do not need to carry a conceiled weapon if you don't want to, but in a couple months, I'm going to Mesa AZ, and I will be legally packing my big 9. I will legally hide it, but of course I may carry it around exposed, and its all legal
...capisce

I understand you just made a moot point that does NOT affect the basis of my statement....nor does it answer the question I initially put to the author of this thread.
 
While many Americans are at least familiar with the words to the Second Amendment, fewer are aware of the Constitutional purpose of the militia, defined in Article. 1. Section.8., “to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions.” Of those who are familiar, those who disparage an individual right to keep and bear arms are quick to point out that we now have the National Guard. This is a false argument, as it disingenuously evades the inconvenient truth that, as the Subcommittee on the Constitution of the United States Senate Ninety-Seventh Congress noted, “that Congress has established the present National Guard under its power to raise armies, expressly stating that it was not doing so under its power to organize and arm the militia.”

The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner.
http://www.constitution.org/mil/rkba1982.htm

Nice interpretive conclusion....but NOT law. To date, states have to recognize "militias", while the National Guard is the official replacement for such. And to date, SINCE THE DC LAW LASTED ONLY 30 YEARS, NO FEDERAL LAW HAS "GRABBED" any guns from law abiding citizens.

Nice try, though.
 
Nice interpretive conclusion....but NOT law. To date, states have to recognize "militias", while the National Guard is the official replacement for such. And to date, SINCE THE DC LAW LASTED ONLY 30 YEARS, NO FEDERAL LAW HAS "GRABBED" any guns from law abiding citizens.

Nice try, though.
i admire your ability to deny reality when you've been proven completely wrong
 
There is, after all, no such thing as a responsible gun owner.[/COLOR]

Since government has the most guns, government must be the least responsible, huh?

Oh, damn. Another memo I didn't get.

I didn't know the Bill of Rights contained a Right to Travel.

“The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.” (Amendment 9, BILL OF RIGHTS, United States Constitution)
 
Why's that a bad idea?

Y'all are always comparing guns to cars, yet everyone owning a car is required to have insurance.
You do not need insurance to buy a car. You do not need insurance to own a car. You do not need insurance to keep a car in/at your home. You do not need insurance to drive a car on private property.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
Nice interpretive conclusion....but NOT law. To date, states have to recognize "militias", while the National Guard is the official replacement for such. And to date, SINCE THE DC LAW LASTED ONLY 30 YEARS, NO FEDERAL LAW HAS "GRABBED" any guns from law abiding citizens.

Nice try, though.

i admire your ability to deny reality when you've been proven completely wrong

I didn't deny the conclusion of the 97th Congressional Subcommittee....I just pointed out the FACT that it had NO EFFECT on current law(s) regarding individual State law re: gun licensing, recognition of militias, CCWP or CWP, STATE National Guard and the FEDERAL LAW applied to such, etc.

Deal with it.
 
You do not need insurance to buy a car. You do not need insurance to own a car. You do not need insurance to keep a car in/at your home. You do not need insurance to drive a car on private property.

Which is why gun ownership should be treated like cars.
 
I didn't deny the conclusion of the 97th Congressional Subcommittee....I just pointed out the FACT that it had NO EFFECT on current law(s) regarding individual State law re: gun licensing, recognition of militias, CCWP or CWP, STATE National Guard and the FEDERAL LAW applied to such, etc.

Deal with it.

nice backpedaling.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
I didn't deny the conclusion of the 97th Congressional Subcommittee....I just pointed out the FACT that it had NO EFFECT on current law(s) regarding individual State law re: gun licensing, recognition of militias, CCWP or CWP, STATE National Guard and the FEDERAL LAW applied to such, etc.

Deal with it.

nice backpedaling.

What are you, fucking stupid? What I state is FACT...if you can prove otherwise, then do. If not, STFU.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
What are you, fucking stupid? What I state is FACT...if you can prove otherwise, then do. If not, STFU
.
I did prove them. you're unwillingness to acknowledge it speaks volumes about your obstinancy.

No stupid, all you did was post an OPINION by a Congressional Subcommittee.....which is all well and good, but it DID NOT and HAS NOT change the current laws regarding who can purchase a weapon, how they can purchase a weapon, what weapons they can purchase, etc. EACH STATE has variations on this, but they ALL require a license to own a weapon. EACH STATE has a National Guard that is and can be put under the direct control of the Federal Gov't. EACH STATE has LAWS that either do or do not allow for militias to be formed. And there is a LAW which states that the National Guard replaces individual militas FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

So all this bullshit from parrots like YOU, STY, regarding background checks is just that...bullshit. Carry on.
 
No stupid, all you did was post an OPINION by a Congressional Subcommittee.....which is all well and good, but it DID NOT and HAS NOT change the current laws regarding who can purchase a weapon, how they can purchase a weapon, what weapons they can purchase, etc. EACH STATE has variations on this, but they ALL require a license to own a weapon. EACH STATE has a National Guard that is and can be put under the direct control of the Federal Gov't. EACH STATE has LAWS that either do or do not allow for militias to be formed. And there is a LAW which states that the National Guard replaces individual militas FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

So all this bullshit from parrots like YOU, STY, regarding background checks is just that...bullshit. Carry on.

you are a certified MORON for even thinking that a law can change the rights of we the people. a certified MORON. dismissed, you dumbass.
 
EACH STATE has variations on this, but they ALL require a license to own a weapon.
no, each state does not.

EACH STATE has a National Guard that is and can be put under the direct control of the Federal Gov't.
The National Guard is considered the organized militia. the rest of us are considered the unorganized militia. nothing of which you put on here tells anyone that the people no longer have a right to bear arms.

EACH STATE has LAWS that either do or do not allow for militias to be formed. And there is a LAW which states that the National Guard replaces individual militas FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.
Being that Congress/Senate branches are the direct representatives of 'we the people' (you know, the framers of the constitution), their 'opinion' as you put it tells us EXACTLY what the national guard was intended to do and it was NOT to replace the well regulated militia of the 2nd Amendment.
 
Quote Originally Posted by Taichiliberal View Post
No stupid, all you did was post an OPINION by a Congressional Subcommittee.....which is all well and good, but it DID NOT and HAS NOT change the current laws regarding who can purchase a weapon, how they can purchase a weapon, what weapons they can purchase, etc. EACH STATE has variations on this, but they ALL require a license to own a weapon. EACH STATE has a National Guard that is and can be put under the direct control of the Federal Gov't. EACH STATE has LAWS that either do or do not allow for militias to be formed. And there is a LAW which states that the National Guard replaces individual militas FOR THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA.

So all this bullshit from parrots like YOU, STY, regarding background checks is just that...bullshit. Carry on.

you are a certified MORON for even thinking that a law can change the rights of we the people. a certified MORON. dismissed, you dumbass.

See folks, all one has to do is just apply a little truth, facts and the logic derived from them to these oather/threeper/libber-tarian/neocon/teabagger blowhards, and just regress to parroting their beliefs and willful ignorance ad nauseum.

To date, there is NO LAW that prevents a legal, law abiding citizen from purchasing a gun or rifle...and there is NO law which permits the federal gov't to "grab" guns from the aforementioned.

STY CANNOT logically or factually fault what I stated above....but he'll dance like a chicken on a hot plate before acknowledging such. He's done.
 
Back
Top