Gun control

[424365]

1. 
   The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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."

See those lovely little symbols there? They're called commas. You use them to incorporated several pieces of information in one sentence. In this case a well regulated militia (we see you spotted that one) AND the right of the people to keep and bear arms (seems your eyes got tired before you made it to this part) shall not be infringed.

 

[424365]

Oh so know you are a Marine Officer too?

No jackass it means I can follow orders from the officers appointed over me who are not as "conflicted". You aren't clever stop pretending to be.

 

[phonehome]

I have seen officers take that oath, more than once actually and it sounded word for word like the one I took at least 2 more times that you did and I will put money on the fact that it it said "support" not uphold and included that line about "obeying the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me"

 

[424365]

I have seen officers take that oath, more than once actually and it sounded word for word like the one I took at least 2 more times that you did and I will put money on the fact that it it said "support" not uphold and included that line about "obeying the President of the United States and the officers appointed over me"

See that's funny
Because I was just present for an officer renewing his oath and that was both omitted from the verbal statement and his warrant.

 

[Ed69]

Unlike you I have offered solutions. So far fro you we have had crying about there not being a universal set of rules concerning gun purchases and ownership and also crying that such universal rules equal confiscation and a power grab. We've also had nonsense about taking to the woods and stockpiling weapons because you had a hissy fit.

Maybe just maybe you're starting to get what I did.Yes I posted for and against and threw in some hyperbole.No matter what I said someone always said I was wrong.And this is why we get nowhere in real life on the issue,the two extreme's will never work there has to be a middle ground

 

[busterhinney]

Oh, look: we have a troll.

what?...because you sheep in california are all sitting ducks?

 

[busterhinney]

Your hands might be cold and dead because you were shot by a friend or family member. Remember accidents do happen.

.0000001 percent chance.....you better turn in your CAR then, because cars kill 10x more then guns!

 

[temptotalk]

.0000001 percent chance.....you better turn in your CAR then, because cars kill 10x more then guns!

I don't know if what you say is true but would that be your endorsement of gun insurance fees? Cause if you kill someone with your car, even if it's an accident you still have to do stuff afterward right? Like giving your victim money. Maybe like a 50-100 a month charge maybe? Just in case victims of gun accidents or murders need help with funeral stuffs?

 

[Ed69]

How not to control a gun!

 

[185248]

And those people were just stupid enough to post themselves and their friends on youtube. Was that you Ed? The guy that lost his pants? I remember taking model ships to a local dam one time and trying to sink them with an air rifle........but that is when I was 13 or 14, cause I was able to walk into a gun shop back then and purchase a gun at that age.

I grew up.

This is a better one

I love it, cause a couple of the guys are wearing ear protection, that will save them from a bullet to the head

 

[185248]

That guy pulled a magazine out and replaced it with another, I'm pretty sure there was still a live one in the tube when he did that.

 

[StormfrontFL]

Maybe just maybe you're starting to get what I did.Yes I posted for and against and threw in some hyperbole.No matter what I said someone always said I was wrong.And this is why we get nowhere in real life on the issue,the two extreme's will never work there has to be a middle ground

We get nowhere because the lovers of only the 2nd amendment never want this to be taken seriously. Every tragedy is met with their cries of "Take them from my cold, dead hands" and "Guns don't kill people. People kill people". Just once I'd like them to tell us what kind of regulations they would approve of and support instead of just sitting on their hands.

 

[StormfrontFL]

.0000001 percent chance.....you better turn in your CAR then, because cars kill 10x more then guns!

You seem to be one of those who drag down the collective IQ.

Let me know when cars were designed with only one purpose, to kill.
Since you seem to focus on cars please tell me why cars are regulated as to who can legally drive, where they can be driven, and what conditions prohibit one from driving?

 

[424365]

We get nowhere because the lovers of only the 2nd amendment never want this to be taken seriously. Every tragedy is met with their cries of "Take them from my cold, dead hands" and "Guns don't kill people. People kill people". Just once I'd like them to tell us what kind of regulations they would approve of and support instead of just sitting on their hands.

We state regulations we would support often, people like you just choose to ignore it.

 

[rbkwp]

well, theres still a bit of humour in the world
even if its at the expense of the idiocy of humans and there gun play

dont worry your top man will executive order his right to deny yous what you proudly see as your
'god given right, to bare arms'
odd how he leaves it till his last year of business so many of your beloved citizens mass killed in the interim duh'

still they may just award him another nobel peace prize, for such a belated magnificent gesture ..

 

[424365]

You seem to be one of those who drag down the collective IQ.

Let me know when cars were designed with only one purpose, to kill.
Since you seem to focus on cars please tell me why cars are regulated as to who can legally drive, where they can be driven, and what conditions prohibit one from driving?

Why don't you explain why current laws aren't being used to prosecute current firearm offenders? This article is two years old but there are several that were published today stating the same.

www.usnews.com: Chicago, Los Angeles, New York Prosecuted Fewest Federal Gun Crimes

 

[phonehome]

There are a number of reasons which I have already listed but all the NRA types refuse to listen to.

It is due to the all but impossible to get a CONVICTION and anything short of that is just a waste of time effort and money due to the way the laws in question have been so undermined, watered down or otherwise weakened due to the "amendment process" I have already described and we have all heard for years about how the Federal courts are so "overwhelmed" with cases so no one wants to add to that backlog with cases that are sure fire loosers.

In "theory" it is "against the law" for you to sell me a weapon if I am a convicted felon or am not otherwise entitled to buy or own a weapon you can sell me all the weapons in the world, dozens a day and be convicted of nothing by using the "I did not know defense" To get a conviction that US Attorney must "PROVE that you DID KNOW and "just did it anyway" Now short of you just confessing or me ratting me out which put my word as a convicted felon against yours as a citizen who maybe has never even been arrested or you being caught up in some kind of ATF "sting" which if that is the case your attorney will cry "entrapment" and as long as there is one "ED69" or a "Bundy ite" on the jury you will get a hung jury so with very rare exceptions like the San Bernidino who a jury will convict mostly because he is Muslim "you will never get charged in the first place.

Now if you were "required to know" by lets say doing a background check something that using 2016 Steve Jobs inspired IE "an APP for that" technology it would be quite easy for you to do that, something that was not the case in the early 90's when "instant background checks" came into being which was the entire reason given for putting in the "gun show loop hole" in the first place.

Back then "gun shows" as we know them now did not even exist and those few odd people at flea markets did not have "cell phones" back then less than 10% of the population did and more than half were "carphone" installed in a not readily available POV or easy or even any access to a landline another example given was very remote "out in the middle of no where" gun shops that may have had no phone service of any kind.

The dollars yes dollars per minute was also given as reason for not requiring the use of a cell phone.

It was deemed an "undue burden" and beside not many weapons were getting sold that way anyway.

It helps to know a little history

Well that is not the world we live in today. "everybody" has or has easy access to the web via wireless laptop/tablet or "smartphone" or at the very least an old timey "dumbphone" which can call that 1-800 number. but the NRA who was publicly stated they were for "universal background checks" or as close as we can get has million and one excuses why we should not even bother.

Now if I go out and kill a few dozen people with that AR you sold me in theory you can be charged in connection with that like the SB neighbor is but unless you are one of those vilified Muslims "I didn't know" is enough to get you off because that US Attorney must PROVE you did.

Any other examples of people not being prosecuted that you want explained?

 

[rbkwp]

We speak to American gun owners about gun control

President Obama's pledge to take executive action on gun ownership laws has polarised Americans.

Kimberly Halkett spoke to gun owners about the potential changes.

hallelujah duh'
of course Trump woll lkely be working towards rescinding it if he can/not that he will get in, all for bluster and show ..
no confidence in any moves that are made ..
can be said i have no say anyway ha, who gives a F'

January 04, 2016

NYTimes.com »
Breaking News Alert
January 04, 2016

BREAKING NEWS
President Obama will bypass Congress to expand firearms background checks and step up enforcement of gun laws

Monday, January 4, 2016 6:34 PM EST
President Obama will announce executive actions on Tuesday designed to expand background checks for firearms and step up federal enforcement of the nation’s gun laws, White House officials said Monday, once again trying to sidestep a gridlocked Congress on a divisive issue.
Read more »

 

[StormfrontFL]

What? No mention of rounding up all guns and taking them from their owners? It doesn't matter because gun lovers will hear that anyway.

 

[phonehome]

Oh come on, don't you know that no matter what it is that that will ALWAYS be "the next step"