Yes, these are called Amendments. They one you are terrified of is the 2nd Amendment.
In before the gun confiscation NUTS.....
- Thread starter Capt Ron 1
- Start date
It's absolutely necessary!
Have you watched the news the last few weeks?
And what other amendments have "expired" in your view?
Go through the appropriate process and get it changed, until then it's the governing document of the Republic.
You don't get to pick and choose what parts of the Constitution are "Constitutional" based on your personal hang ups. It's sort of the entire point.
Laws normally only change when people decide to change them (unless an end date is built in).
We all have laws we like and laws we don't like.
The gun companies LOVE the 2nd amendment.
That requires leaving the porch. Apparently his love of his porch overrules his fear of guns.
Had the British gotten their way, Americans would have no guns, and we'd still be bowing to the crown. Not sure how much clearer this could be. Had Ukraine citizens been armed to the teeth, they might not have been overrun.
Your homework assignment for the week is to watch Red Dawn. 😂
So, we wrote the second amendment then quickly built a bunch of guns to fight the British?
Ye Olde Gun Company must have loved that!
And Israel, if every family in those neighborhoods had at the very least semi-auto hunting rifle and some decent ammo things would have been different for the subhuman Hamas animals.
BUT, Israel's gov't is as scared of guns as Theo is, Hamas knew that, so you get unfettered slaughter of innocents.
The VERY NEXT DAY the Israeli gov't removed the ban and promised to expedite gun licenses.
Do you get just as mad at Home Security companies charging for goods and services and *gasp* making a profit?
Any company whose products are constitutionally protected are happy about that fact.
I'm sure media companies LOVE the 1st amendment.
Are you going to make an actual point any time soon?
Well you've got gun nuts running all over place aimlessly killing people at a clip of 3.5 per 100k!
Do you blame him???
I'm surprised Israel needs to be given arms. They seem like big boys who can handle it themselves.
Ask the 1400 people butchered who found out the hard way
So you think if hamas didn't have guns, they dont attack Israel?
He just increased the odds of gun violence. @GatorTheo doesnt get this either.
So do people who love freedom more than they fear an inanimate object.
You are ate up with the gun companies.
And STILL no link to a gun ever harming anyone Theo...I will not relent...back up what you posted, son. Admit you got whipped here...and I will back off. Until then...I WILL remind you of what you posted. ZERO FACTS EVER.
I've always thought that the dumbest thing the gun nuts believed was that there were millions of defensive gun uses each year.
That's been supplanted by guns not killing people because they're inanimate.
So you think there's few if any defensive gun uses, and that guns can kill people on their own.
Serious question: If what you think is real, how come you can't get guns outlawed?
I think we're supposed to be upset that the gun companies own us.
Of course there are defensive gun uses. You guys post every one you find.....at least once a week.
I don't understand your question. If what I think is real? I haven't suggested outlawing guns. It's just another one of your strawmen.
So you think there's only one or two defensive gun uses a week? Thanks for clarifying.
And you also think that guns can kill people by themselves.
If those two points are real, how come you can't get guns outlawed? By your logic, it seems like guns are running around firing themselves and it's almost always to attack someone.
You've gone off the deep end. You're incapable of rational discussion because you are only focused on defending guns in any way you can dream up....no matter how ridiculous.
You're projecting, Theo. All I'm doing is recapping your stances towards guns.
Your implication is that 99.99999% of gun uses are offensive, ie attacking. And you believe it's asinine to suggest that guns don't kill people.
I simply pointed out, if everyone believed as you do on both points, that it would be a slam dunk to outlaw guns.
So why can't you?
Do they believe that or is that what you were told they believe?
From "Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence (2013)"
found here
Priorities for Research to Reduce the Threat of Firearm-Related Violence | The National Academies Press
Read online, download a free PDF, or order a copy in print or as an eBook.
nap.nationalacademies.org
"Defensive Use of Guns
Defensive use of guns by crime victims is a common occurrence,
although the exact number remains disputed (Cook and Ludwig, 1996;
Kleck, 2001a). Almost all national survey estimates indicate that defensive gun uses by victims are at least as common as offensive uses by
criminals, with estimates of annual uses ranging from about 500,000 to
more than 3 million (Kleck, 2001a), in the context of about 300,000 violent crimes involving firearms in 2008 (BJS, 2010). On the other hand,
some scholars point to a radically lower estimate of only 108,000 annual
defensive uses based on the National Crime Victimization Survey (Cook
et al., 1997). The variation in these numbers remains a controversy in the
field. The estimate of 3 million defensive uses per year is based on an
extrapolation from a small number of responses taken from more than 19
national surveys. The former estimate of 108,000 is difficult to interpret
because respondents were not asked specifically about defensive gun use."
Millions might indeed be a stretch but even using the very lowest number it's still twice that of people killed by guns including suicide.
Someone still doesn’t understand that infringe and limit are synonyms.
Sad thing is he assumes we are blindly defending guns since he is blindly attacking them. I don't even own a gun LOL
It's just that we can see past our own nose, our own porch, and understand why we have the Second Amendment, why it is necessary, and what it means for society as a whole if we remove it.
Theo can't do that. If he could put his country before his irrational fear of an inanimate object....he would be on our level.
I can agree with that.
"... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" and "... the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be limited" are pretty much the same.
The problem for him, is the grammar and vocabulary of the amendment doesn’t support what he is saying. He has essentially admitted that with his post.
So, now we have confirmed he was trolling.
Your right to bear arms, should in fact be Unlimited. Why? Because it shall not be limited.
I've been listening to gun nuts since Al Gore invented the internet. I know what they believe.
I have two issues with the defensive gun numbers:
First, the numbers themselves. 1M would be over 2,700 each day. We'd be hearing the stories all the time. It would have to be someone with access to a gun, who successfully defends themselves against someone attempting a crime. How many people even carry? 25%? How many people are targets for crime? The numbers just don't work realistically.
Secondly, how do they gather the numbers? They ask gun owners who, in many cases, would have a pro-gun agenda. It would be like asking minorities if they've ever been the victim of discrimination. What do you think they're going to say? The results of such a survey are obviously going to be skewed.
Let me ask you a very simple question about 'bearing arms'.
How many weapons would you have to possess to be 'bearing arms'?
Like, if you had no weapons and I gave you one, would you be 'bearing arms'? Would I need to give you a second weapon because 'armS' is plural?
I hardly believe the CDC would include such slapdash methodology at face value, they're hardly right wing.
There's a column in most gun magazines called armed citizen that chronicles documented dgu incidents monthly.
There's 81 million gun owners and 410 million guns.
The media tells me a violent crime occurs every 20 minutes. Those are the successful ones.
As there's no good metric to report such an incident and the media being disinclined generally, and specifically to reports that are essentially hearsay, 2700 a day seems quite reasonable.
You don't think media companies owned by such notable liberals as Michael Bloomberg would report on incidents that counter their generally anti gun narrative would you?
Perhaps your mileage varies.
LOL! So you think lefty media is going to report on defensive gun uses?
You are SO bad at this. Everyone here knows that lefty media isn't going to admit that guns are used defensively and to SAVE LIVES any more than you will.
Again, you believe that guns kill people, so how is it you can't get them outlawed? What's the hold up?
