Again, I've never suggested not letting law abiding citizens bear arms to protect themselves. You just see it that way because I'm not a gun fanatic. I don't worship guns so I must want to take them all away.
In before the gun confiscation NUTS.....
- Thread starter Capt Ron 1
- Start date
What shall not be infringed/limited?
The right to bear arms shall not be infringed/limited.
The 2nd doesn't guarantee the right to unlimited weapons......only the right to bear arms.
How many weapons will you need when you form your well regulated militia? 3? 5?
Interesting note...
A nearby town uses federal dollars to "buy back" guns in an effort to reduce gun violence in the city. They do it every year.
Two years ago I saw their haul. Many of the guns were hand made. Literally a tube, some sort of trigger and a firing pin. People made them just so they could sell them at the buy back and they met the legal guideline. The government was offering money and enterprising con-men were willing to oblige their stupidity.
About 10% of the guns "bought back" were the actual guns they were hoping for. The rest were old, broken, rusted or manufactured to rip off the program.
And again, they do this every year.
A nearby town uses federal dollars to "buy back" guns in an effort to reduce gun violence in the city. They do it every year.
Two years ago I saw their haul. Many of the guns were hand made. Literally a tube, some sort of trigger and a firing pin. People made them just so they could sell them at the buy back and they met the legal guideline. The government was offering money and enterprising con-men were willing to oblige their stupidity.
About 10% of the guns "bought back" were the actual guns they were hoping for. The rest were old, broken, rusted or manufactured to rip off the program.
And again, they do this every year.
AYFKM?
The right to bear arms shall not be limited. Limiting the number of guns you can own is literally limiting that right. You're trying an illogical end-round on the BOR.
Stop lecturing others about disjointed logic. What you typed here is the most intellectually dishonest BS I've ever read.
Why would he need to pick 3 or 5? Or any number?
Are standing armies limited by law for how many they can have?
If you pass a law that infringes (limits) ones ability to own guns….are you limiting (infringing) the amount they can own?
At this point he either knows this and is trolling, or doesn’t belong in any occupation that requires any sort of decision making.
Maybe janitorial services or something along those lines.
And we're "gun fanatics who worship guns" because we're constitutionalists?
Ghost has said for years that he doesn't own a gun. Is he a gun worshipping gun fanatic as well?
You seem to hate being labeled...but you sure love to label others.
You're constitutionalists?
So, if the dems got control, packed the court and overturned the second and outlawed guns, you'd give up your guns and urge other to do so because you have such deep respect for the constitution?
And you are wrong. But I have sniffed you out. Someone reads leftist extremist nonsense. Bullseye fellas.
He is not a moderate. Slate. 🤣
Like I said earlier….”moderates” that wish to subvert the constitution are dangerous extremists.
A Two-Guns-Per-Person Limit Would Protect Americans’ Lives and Liberty
A simple and constitutional proposal.
As many as I deem necessary.
My right to do so "shall not be infringed".
And why does anyone care - my guns don't kill people in the commission of a crime - they are only for sport and self defense. If you're worried about gun violence you'd want as many guns as possible owned by people like myself.
Back to @RussellCasse 's point...
If we allow you the right to free speech, how many times must we allow it?
Last month you said 17 things I didn't want to hear....and enough is enough. We've fulfilled our obligations for your free speach and now you've said enough.
Shall make no law ='s shall not be infringed. Anything you say that contradicts the above is nonsense and I'm revoking your right to express it.
So the 'controversy' is back on the table? Earlier you said this issue was settled and that you were wrong.
Never let the truth and facts get in the way of another troll attempt, eh?
That site doesn't like my ad blocker but from the title, they seem pretty open minded.And you are wrong. But I have sniffed you out. Someone reads leftist extremist nonsense. Bullseye fellas.
He is not a moderate. Slate. 🤣
Like I said earlier….”moderates” that wish to subvert the constitution are dangerous extremists.
A Two-Guns-Per-Person Limit Would Protect Americans’ Lives and Liberty
A simple and constitutional proposal.slate.com
No, we actually have seen the 2A infringed by the courts and it doesn't sit well with me as-is because the amendment itself hasn't been changed.
Now, if 34 states called for an Article V convention and the Constitution was changed, that might be different. I wouldn't like it but that's the process.
But some activist liberal judges can eff off.
Busted. This is the only entertainment @GatorTheo provides, much like @BSC911 slipping up and replying as himself under the @theswamp15 sock.And you are wrong. But I have sniffed you out. Someone reads leftist extremist nonsense. Bullseye fellas.
He is not a moderate. Slate. 🤣
Like I said earlier….”moderates” that wish to subvert the constitution are dangerous extremists.
A Two-Guns-Per-Person Limit Would Protect Americans’ Lives and Liberty
A simple and constitutional proposal.
I am just here to watch him tell on himself. Entertain me.
You share opinions with the extremist slate publication. It is what it is.
Again, the first says (roughly) no law shall be made to limit speech.
That's not what the second says. The second says you have the right to bear arms.....not that no law will ever be made regarding guns.
I don't worship guns at all.
I barely know what caliber pistols I own, and I really don't care b/c I know how to operate them and I have plenty of ammo to protect my family.
I worship the right to protect myself while @BamaFan1137 settles his bill at lunch.
Again - you're backtracking on specifics you've already outlined. Just admit you have no solutions, proposed or considered. You just hate guns and want fewer of them....somehow.
I don't march to any political side's agenda. My opinions are all over the place depending on the issue.
I do side with the left on some things. I'm against the death penalty. I'm for limited abortion rights. I'm for limited protection of the environment. I'm for a progressive tax.
It says it shall not be infringed, and it gives the goal of "a well-regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a Free State".
It's really clear, but keep ignoring what it actually says....which is the definition of trolling. Lie and obfuscate repeatedly to generate responses from other posters...
The “independents and moderates” make this easy. They always tell on themselves.
That’s why they act this way, then tell the right they need to nominate the next Romney, Mccain, Christie etc….
Because they know those picks are on THE team.
correct, and on this issue you're a radical leftist
They appear to lie (no pun intended 😉) wherever extremist propaganda lie. Again, no pun intended. 🤔
Let me try (and probably fail) to help you understand.
The radical left's view of the gun violence equation: guns = gun violence
The radical right's view of the gun violence equation: criminals = gun violence
The rational person's view of the gun violence equation: criminals + guns = gun violence
He calls me a 'gun nut' and there's a decent chance he owns more guns than I do.
Absolutely. Your arguments are simply too complex for @fatman76 to grasp.
That's totally what is happening here.
Remember he started all this by saying he was taking the Constitution literally, and then clarified he was talking about the words it actually said.
Then spent the next 10 pages discussing something the Constitution doesn't say.
Yes, I'm a constitutionalist.
The courts cannot "overturn" the 2nd Amendment (you meant repeal). That would require a 2/3rds vote in Congress (Article 5) and that seems unlikely.
Repealing (or altering) an amendment has been attempted nearly 12,000 times in our history and it's only been successful once (21st repealed the 18th). So good luck.
To answer your question, yes, if the 2nd was legally repealed by congress, I'd oblige.
No, that's not what the 2nd says. It says that my right shall not be limited by use of the word infringed which, as I've said a nauseating number of times now, is defined by the word limited.
If you can limit my guns, I can limit your speech.
Off topic...I usually bring my lunch to work and eat in my patrol vehicle. 😁
Cool, let's argue about these two...because we've beaten the 2nd to death and you've lost miserably even if you won't admit it.
Actually...it damn sure does
So if they broke the Constitution to change the Constitution? No...we would have a fight. And they would lose.
Sure.
We shouldn't be killing people we have in custody. It's barbaric and sets the wrong example for our young people. We're supposed to be civilized.
While we can't go overboard, we also can't let businesses ruin the environment in search of profits.
