Sick Gun Grabbers want all gun owners insured

Lucius Cornelius Sulla said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
More lies and distortions, as too date no one has "grabbed" any law abiding, legal gun owner's weapon. Bottom line: Cars are designed for the primary purpose of transportation: you insure cars against accidently collisions because of the high probability that it may happen during the life of the car or driver. Guns are designed primarily to have one purpose....to kill animals and/or other human beings: insuring them against accidental shootings or theft to do such wouldn't cost more than what, $25 bucks a month? And the $10 grand find DOES NOT AFFECT GUN OWNERS WHO PURCHASED THEIR WEAPONS PRIOR TO THE LAW IF IT GOES INTO EFFECT!
Click to expand...
So you'd be fine with poll taxes and literacy tests?
Click to expand...

I would be fine without jokers like you trying to change the topic of discussion just because you cannot fault the logic and factual basis of my statement.
 
SJJRSJJS said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
More lies and distortions, as too date no one has "grabbed" any law abiding, legal gun owner's weapon. Bottom line: Cars are designed for the primary purpose of transportation: you insure cars against accidently collisions because of the high probability that it may happen during the life of the car or driver. Guns are designed primarily to have one purpose....to kill animals and/or other human beings: insuring them against accidental shootings or theft to do such wouldn't cost more than what, $25 bucks a month? And the $10 grand find DOES NOT AFFECT GUN OWNERS WHO PURCHASED THEIR WEAPONS PRIOR TO THE LAW IF IT GOES INTO EFFECT!
Click to expand...


It will never go into effect Nationally. Probably not, as we have the best democracy that money can buy! But if some individual states can swing it, so much the better. Like I have stated before, I hope that all the Liberal States disarm their people so that we are the only gun owners in the Country, then when the sheet hits the fan, you'all can come and beg US for protection.
Click to expand...

More paranoid wet dream gibberish from the willfully ignorant gunner/teabagger set. Bottom line: you cannot logically or factually fault what I stated, which in effect makes your subject title out to be a lie.
 
Taichiliberal said:
I would be fine without jokers like you trying to change the topic of discussion just because you cannot fault the logic and factual basis of my statement.
Click to expand...

Paying a fee to exercise a right is an infringement on that right. Anything else you have to say is meaningless. You either agree that all rights can be similarly licensed and taxed, or you can drop the idea entirely.
 
Lucius Cornelius Sulla said:
Paying a fee to exercise a right is an infringement on that right. Anything else you have to say is meaningless. You either agree that all rights can be similarly licensed and taxed, or you can drop the idea entirely.
Click to expand...

Good. So we can put you down as against requiring photo ID's to vote and taxing parents of college students?
 
Howey said:
Why's that a bad idea?

Y'all are always comparing guns to cars, yet everyone owning a car is required to have insurance.
Click to expand...

The anti-Second Amendment bastard politicians don’t really give a rat’s ass about “insurance,” they simply want to have another excuse to lock up gun owners that shoot people that attack them and break into their homes. That’s why they are always crying for gun registration, wanting to sue gun manufactures, abolish or tax the hell out of ammunition and now even demanding gun owners carry insurance. They want to know ”who” owns the guns and registration and insurance will nicely compile a national list of gun owners for the bastards so when they finally get balls enough to go house to house and confiscate them they’ll know exactly where the guns are at.
 
Classic Liberal said:
The anti-Second Amendment bastard politicians don’t really give a rat’s ass about “insurance,” they simply want to have another excuse to lock up gun owners that shoot people that attack them and break into their homes. That’s why they are always crying for gun registration, wanting to sue gun manufactures, abolish or tax the hell out of ammunition and now even demanding gun owners carry insurance. They want to know ”who” owns the guns and registration and insurance will nicely compile a national list of gun owners for the bastards so when they finally get balls enough to go house to house and confiscate them they’ll know exactly where the guns are at.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the input, STY.

(I really thought you were above this conspiracy shit)
 
Howey said:
Why's that a bad idea?

Y'all are always comparing guns to cars, yet everyone owning a car is required to have insurance.
Click to expand...

Not true. You are required to have insurance if you operate your vehicle on public roads. If you do not, you are not required to have insurance.
 
Howey said:
Thanks for the input, STY.

(I really thought you were above this conspiracy shit)
Click to expand...

Nothing conspiracy theory about it. Too many politicians have came right out and stated that is their goal. Perhaps you should try to keep abreast of these things and then your replies would not be so silly to we that stay informed.
 
Howey said:
Thanks for the input, STY.

(I really thought you were above this conspiracy shit)
Click to expand...

It’s no shit! The gun grabbing bastard politicians and their Wuzzy ass lickers have been on a warring agenda my entire life time to abolish the Second Amendment one fucking gun law/regulation at a time. Only the insane, blind and Wuzzy’s haven’t noticed that. Only morons think government can solve criminal actions by regulating and prohibiting the constitutional rights of law-abiding people. It’s an absurd notion!!!!!

“Outlaw guns, and only ”outlaws” will have guns.” No truer saying was ever uttered!!! Just what is it that the idiot left cannot comprehend about that?
 
Hey, Grind, do you know if EdAnger from FP was ever investigated (can't remember if he made the transition here or not)? I know he did challenge some poster to a duel, and actually showed up for it!
 
SmarterthanYou said:
I did not make that post, but it's certainly not conspiracy crap as several politicians have decried that to be their intention.
Click to expand...

Care to provide the unedited quotes from said politicians that state exactly what you assert here? If not, don't waste time and space with anything else.
 
Okay, let me put an end to all this gunner BS.

First, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states: 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.

Subsequently, this little ditty came about during Washingtons tenure as President: Militia Act of 1792,
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia.

And lastly, we have The Militia Act of 1903, which repealed the above and converted it into the National Guard.

I would STRONGLY urge all who believe the erroneous insinuations of the subject title of this thread to CAREFULLY go and read what I've named here....because I don't think that all the gunners and NRA toadies and suckers would be willing to actually ADHERE to the letter of the law regarding gun ownership AS DICTATED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND CONGRESS.
 
SJJRSJJS said:
Because poor people have as much right as anyone else to own a gun without the expense of a tax/insurance that they cannot afford. A good example would be people stuck in the sheet hole ghettos, who obviously would leave if they could afford to, butt need a gun to defend themselves from home invasions, etc . Should the 47 million people on Food Stamps be forced to buy insurance or maybe you feel that they should not own a gun, or maybe the Government could provide them with "gun insurance", like they do the Food Stamps? This gun insurance is just another form of gun control like they did to hunting in Califa, where hardly anyone I know goes hunting "anymoore" because there are just too many regulations. Admit to the American People that you are against any gun ownership and if you could have your way, no one "butt" the police would own a gun, just "come out" and tell US the truth, Howey?
Click to expand...


Then I'm gonna demand the return of poll taxes to vote.......fair is fair.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Okay, let me put an end to all this gunner BS.

First, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states: 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.

Subsequently, this little ditty came about during Washingtons tenure as President: Militia Act of 1792,
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia.

And lastly, we have The Militia Act of 1903, which repealed the above and converted it into the National Guard.

I would STRONGLY urge all who believe the erroneous insinuations of the subject title of this thread to CAREFULLY go and read what I've named here....because I don't think that all the gunners and NRA toadies and suckers would be willing to actually ADHERE to the letter of the law regarding gun ownership AS DICTATED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND CONGRESS.
Click to expand...

I would suggest you have someone explain to you the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".......who are THE PEOPLE mentioned at various
places in the Constitution ?....

and Obama said,

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." .......2008


civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded....who are these people ?
 
Taichiliberal said:
Okay, let me put an end to all this gunner BS.

First, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states: 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.

Subsequently, this little ditty came about during Washingtons tenure as President: Militia Act of 1792,
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia.

And lastly, we have The Militia Act of 1903, which repealed the above and converted it into the National Guard.

I would STRONGLY urge all who believe the erroneous insinuations of the subject title of this thread to CAREFULLY go and read what I've named here....because I don't think that all the gunners and NRA toadies and suckers would be willing to actually ADHERE to the letter of the law regarding gun ownership AS DICTATED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND CONGRESS.
Click to expand...
you're a moron if you think an act of congress can repeal an amendment to the constitution. end of story.
 
Taichiliberal said:
Okay, let me put an end to all this gunner BS.

First, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states: 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.

Subsequently, this little ditty came about during Washingtons tenure as President: Militia Act of 1792,
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia.

And lastly, we have The Militia Act of 1903, which repealed the above and converted it into the National Guard.

I would STRONGLY urge all who believe the erroneous insinuations of the subject title of this thread to CAREFULLY go and read what I've named here....because I don't think that all the gunners and NRA toadies and suckers would be willing to actually ADHERE to the letter of the law regarding gun ownership AS DICTATED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND CONGRESS.
Click to expand...

I've explained that time and time again. They don't want to hear logic. They only want to believe what they think.

NOVA said:
I would suggest you have someone explain to you the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".......who are THE PEOPLE mentioned at various
places in the Constitution ?....

and Obama said,

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." .......2008


civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded....who are these people ?
Click to expand...

That would be the National Guard. der...
 
Howey said:
I've explained that time and time again. They don't want to hear logic. They only want to believe what they think.

That would be the National Guard. der...
Click to expand...
It is the height of stupidity to believe that the founders would protect the right of the government to bear arms after they had just had to win their independence from a government that tried to take theirs.
 
NOVA said:
Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
Okay, let me put an end to all this gunner BS.

First, the Second Amendment to the Constitution states: 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.

Subsequently, this little ditty came about during Washingtons tenure as President: Militia Act of 1792,
Second Congress, Session I. Chapter XXVIII
Passed May 2, 1792,
providing for the authority of the President to call out the Militia.

And lastly, we have The Militia Act of 1903, which repealed the above and converted it into the National Guard.

I would STRONGLY urge all who believe the erroneous insinuations of the subject title of this thread to CAREFULLY go and read what I've named here....because I don't think that all the gunners and NRA toadies and suckers would be willing to actually ADHERE to the letter of the law regarding gun ownership AS DICTATED BY THE CONSTITUTION AND CONGRESS.
Click to expand...

I would suggest you have someone explain to you the meaning of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms".......who are THE PEOPLE mentioned at various
places in the Constitution ?....

The PEOPLE make up the MILITIA, genius.....that's why the ENTIRE sentence makes sense, (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 the subsequent Militia Acts of 1792 and 1903 were validated and based on the Second Amendment. Funny how you NRA flunkies always try to edit out what doesn't fit your credo.
and Obama said,

"We cannot continue to rely on our military in order to achieve the national security objectives we've set. We've got to have a civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded." .......2008


civilian national security force that's just as powerful, just as strong, just as well-funded....who are these people ?
Click to expand...

They're the NATIONAL GUARD, you nitwit. Did you not READ the material I referenced? Probably not, because that would cause you to THINK beyond the out-of-context rhetoric clowns like LaPierre pablum feed you on a regular basis.

Let me dumb it down for you.....each state is operating on the premise that the Constitution does not state that people cannot have guns, and regulates accordingly.

But

If these states were to say "keep your guns, just join the National Guard".....then people would have to adhere to the letter of the law AS IT STANDS BY THE CONSTITUTION AND IT'S AMENDMENTS. And I don't think folk like you could stand that.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top