In before the gun confiscation NUTS.....

[LordofallSocks]

Theo, the SAFE act was passed in 2013. There are an estimated 1 million firearms classified by that law as "assault weapons" in New York state. As of 2023, 44,000 have been registered.

That's a compliance rate of 4%.
11 arrests for violations of this provision have made in ten years.

If a bunch of Yankees in New York won't turn their guns in, what makes you think anyone other than maybe Californians are going to just up and turn their guns in.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

Part of me wants the dems to take out the 2nd amendment just to see gun nuts line up to turn in their weapons.

What if we refuse? Because I would. Every person I know would refuse to.

 

[Mdfgator]

What if we refuse? Because I would. Every person I know would refuse to.

no you wouldnt, you pull over immediately if youre asked to.

 

[GatorTheo]

What if we refuse? Because I would. Every person I know would refuse to.

EXACTLY!

You all don't care about the constitution. It's only a crutch you use to justify worshiping guns. If the constitution changed, your opinion on guns wouldn't change one bit.

 

[LordofallSocks]

EXACTLY!

You all don't care about the constitution. It's only a crutch you use to justify worshiping guns. If the constitution changed, your opinion on guns wouldn't change one bit.

How are you smart enough to turn your phone on and navigate to this site every day?

Nobody ever complied their way out of tyranny Theo.

 

[GatorTheo]

How are you smart enough to turn your phone on and navigate to this site every day?

Nobody ever complied their way out of tyranny Theo.

It's OK to worship guns it just silly to say it has anything to do with the constitution because, if the constitution changed, your attitude on guns would stay the same.

 

[Mdfgator]

It's OK to worship guns it just silly to say it has anything to do with the constitution because, if the constitution changed, your attitude on guns would stay the same.

Thoughts?

 

[GatorTheo]

View embedded media

Thoughts?

Gun nuts will twist the hell out of some data....if not just make it up totally.

Yeah, if you don't count a lot of the gun violence there's not so much gun violence. To them, that's more proof that guns aren't a problem.

 

[nail1988]

EXACTLY!

You all don't care about the constitution. It's only a crutch you use to justify worshiping guns. If the constitution changed, your opinion on guns wouldn't change one bit.

we worship liberty and freedom and guns have help keep it that way. 😎

View embedded media

Thoughts?

 

[Capt Ron 1]

EXACTLY!

You all don't care about the constitution. It's only a crutch you use to justify worshiping guns. If the constitution changed, your opinion on guns wouldn't change one bit.

Unlike you Theo...I CAN and have READ the Constitution. Do me a favor simpleton.....come let me know when you democrats change the Constitution...THEN we can discuss it. THANK GOD REAL Americans do not think like you do. What you NEED to be doing is figuring out how you can be a man to your own family. Seems like you have failed that already.

 

[LordofallSocks]

It's OK to worship guns it just silly to say it has anything to do with the constitution because, if the constitution changed, your attitude on guns would stay the same.

So if they had a Constitutional convention and the states ratified an amendment that repealed the first amendment and established the nation's religion as Mormon, you d be just peachy with that.

 

[Mdfgator]

Gun nuts will twist the hell out of some data....if not just make it up totally.

Yeah, if you don't count a lot of the gun violence there's not so much gun violence. To them, that's more proof that guns aren't a problem.

I cannot say for sure if the data I posted is accurate, but if it is, your response wasn’t very good

 

[GatorTheo]

So if they had a Constitutional convention and the states ratified an amendment that repealed the first amendment and established the nation's religion as Mormon, you d be just peachy with that.

No but I don't constantly crow about my intense respect for the constitution and I don't constantly refer to it to justify my talking points.

 

[nail1988]

Theo thoughts?

Komrade Newsome giddy as his state is a cess -pool

 

[Capt Ron 1]

No but I don't constantly crow about my intense respect for the constitution and I don't constantly refer to it to justify my talking points.

You can't..or you would be lying. You dims do not respect our Constitution

 

[Capt Ron 1]

Theo thoughts?

Komrade Newsome giddy as his state is a cess -pool

View embedded media

Theo approves of this. All dims do

 

[GatorTheo]

Theo thoughts?

Komrade Newsome giddy as his state is a cess -pool

View embedded media

I'm fine with a tax on guns.

 

[GatorTheo]

You can't..or you would be lying. You dims do not respect our Constitution

Didn't you say if the constitution changed you'd refuse to turn your guns in?

 

[LordofallSocks]

No but I don't constantly crow about my intense respect for the constitution and I don't constantly refer to it to justify my talking points.

Make up your FRIGGIN mind.

Better yet, read the federalist papers, or failing that, any article explaining the anti federalist position and the need for the bill of rights in the first place.

Not a lawyer but I'm not even sure you could change the 2nd amendment based on precedent.

You're clearly a masochist, there's no other explanation for 50 plus pages of you getting beat down.

"Talking points." Jesus wept.

 

[GatorTheo]

Make up your FRIGGIN mind.

Better yet, read the federalist papers, or failing that, any article explaining the anti federalist position and the need for the bill of rights in the first place.

Not a lawyer but I'm not even sure you could change the 2nd amendment based on precedent.

You're clearly a masochist, there's no other explanation for 50 plus pages of you getting beat down.

"Talking points." Jesus wept.

You don't think amendments can be changed?

 

[LordofallSocks]

You don't think amendments can be changed?

Thats not the issue here, as usual you're being intentionally obtuse and moving the goalposts and the rest of your bs.

There would be no constitution without the bill of rights, that was the deal made to get it ratified in the first place.

The bill of rights are documentation of natural, inalienable rights, as stated in the preamble.

If you think the bill of rights can be changed, then you don't believe in inalienable rights and that your rights are bestowed by government, as opposed to bestowed by your creator or your birthright as a human.

If the government can take it away it's a privilege not a right.

Can you amend any amendment? Article V gives us the necessary information in theory.

The bill of rights is the foundation for all our laws, amending any of them would take down or justice system because all legal precedents eventually tie back to the bill of rights.

But this is and always has been a bs and specious argument and any attempt to amend the bill of rights should be met with aggressive violence.

 

[GatorTheo]

Thats not the issue here, as usual you're being intentionally obtuse and moving the goalposts and the rest of your bs.

There would be no constitution without the bill of rights, that was the deal made to get it ratified in the first place.

The bill of rights are documentation of natural, inalienable rights, as stated in the preamble.

If you think the bill of rights can be changed, then you don't believe in inalienable rights and that your rights are bestowed by government, as opposed to bestowed by your creator or your birthright as a human.

If the government can take it away it's a privilege not a right.

Can you amend any amendment? Article V gives us the necessary information in theory.

The bill of rights is the foundation for all our laws, amending any of them would take down or justice system because all legal precedents eventually tie back to the bill of rights.

But this is and always has been a bs and specious argument and any attempt to amend the bill of rights should be met with aggressive violence.

I searched briefly. I didn't see anything saying the BOR gets any special protection from change.

 

[LordofallSocks]

I searched briefly. I didn't see anything saying the BOR gets any special protection from change.

I never said it did. Article V makes no exceptions nor offers protection for any amendment.

You're still missing the point.

Forget the guns for a second.

This is a spirit of the law versus the letter of the law argument.

Following unjust laws is a Socratic concept. It is not an American one.

I would be in the streets setting the world on fire over any of the amendments. I'm liberty nut.

The reason we are a representative democracy instead of a pure democracy is precisely so large groups of stupid people can't fundamentally change the ideals of this country.

 

[GatorTheo]

I never said it did. Article V makes no exceptions nor offers protection for any amendment.

You're still missing the point.

Forget the guns for a second.

This is a spirit of the law versus the letter of the law argument.

Following unjust laws is a Socratic concept. It is not an American one.

I would be in the streets setting the world on fire over any of the amendments. I'm liberty nut.

The reason we are a representative democracy instead of a pure democracy is precisely so large groups of stupid people can't fundamentally change the ideals of this country.

I thought you questioned whether the BORs could be changed at all.

Anyway.....we're all alike. We like the laws we like and don't like the ones we don't.

 

[LordofallSocks]

I thought you questioned whether the BORs could be changed at all.

Anyway.....we're all alike. We like the laws we like and don't like the ones we don't.

Well derp, who would favor laws they don't like?

 

[fatman76]

He's correct that the 2nd doesn't say you can own any weapon. How can any thinking person actually deny that?

Note: Yes, I realize 'thinking person' excludes gun nuts.

I missed the part where it limits the type of firearm. Can you cite that for me?

 

[NavigatorII]

I missed the part where it limits the type of firearm. Can you cite that for me?

Well if it's any point of comfort, I believe most cannons were owned by private citizens prior to the Civil War. Pretty sure the government didn't have a problem with those scary black barrels then either. I believe they are still legal to this day. 😂 Remember the Gatlin guns? That spilled over into hood jargon. Get yo gats bros!! 😂

 

[LordofallSocks]

Well if it's any point of comfort, I believe most cannons were owned by private citizens prior to the Civil War. Pretty sure the government didn't have a problem with those scary black barrels then either. I believe they are still legal to this day. 😂 Remember the Gatlin guns? That spilled over into hood jargon. Get yo gats bros!! 😂

All the cannons were privately owned, that's why the government invented letters of marque.

There are still no restrictions on cannons or mortars.

 

[LordofallSocks]

The basis for the 2nd amendment predates the country.

From the English declaration of rights, 1689:

Article 7

All Protestants have the  right to bear arms for defence. These, the subjects which are Protestants may have arms for their defence suitable to their conditions and as allowed by law.

So the wacky notion that self defense is an inalienable right came over here with the first settlers.

The two major changes should pop out at you, as they bookend the article.

 

[fatman76]

EXACTLY!

You all don't care about the constitution. It's only a crutch you use to justify worshiping guns. If the constitution changed, your opinion on guns wouldn't change one bit.

You don’t even understand how the Constitution works.

Your statement earlier about the 2A “not allowing you to have whatever guns you want” proves it.

The Constitution limits and defines the powers of the federal gov’t, thereby protecting individual liberty.

It’s not an arbitrary state law that doesn’t even make sense. There’s no such thing as an “assault weapon”.

 

[fatman76]

Well if it's any point of comfort, I believe most cannons were owned by private citizens prior to the Civil War. Pretty sure the government didn't have a problem with those scary black barrels then either. I believe they are still legal to this day. 😂 Remember the Gatlin guns? That spilled over into hood jargon. Get yo gats bros!! 😂

Are you and @LordofallSocks going to pay theo’s dry cleaning bill!? 100% sure he’s pissing himself now that he knows I can own a cannon.

Surely the 2a says I can’t have a cannon, right?

We should read it more closely.

 

[GatorTheo]

Are you and @LordofallSocks going to pay theo’s dry cleaning bill!? 100% sure he’s pissing himself now that he knows I can own a cannon.

Surely the 2a says I can’t have a cannon, right?

We should read it more closely.

You believe the 2nd gives you the right to own a machine gun, don't you?

 

[LordofallSocks]

You believe the 2nd gives you the right to own a machine gun, don't you?

It does.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

Didn't you say if the constitution changed you'd refuse to turn your guns in?

Let me be clear to you once again, since you are very slow. Get with me when that happens. I am 62, and I can 100% confidently say it will NEVER, EVER happen in my lifetime. So your stupid question is just stoopid. If you loose your male part...are you a female?

 

[GatorTheo]

Let me be clear to you once again, since you are very slow. Get with me when that happens. I am 62, and I can 100% confidently say it will NEVER, EVER happen in my lifetime. So your stupid question is just stoopid. If you loose your male part...are you a female?

It absolutely won't happen but the gun companies have your cult worried sick that jackbooted thugs are getting ready to kick your doors down.

 

[Capt Ron 1]

It absolutely won't happen but the gun companies have your cult worried sick that jackbooted thugs are getting ready to kick your doors down.

Worried sick? About WHAT?? A bunch of males that wear "man" buns like you? LOLOLOL You forget...we have ULTIMATE authority when it comes right down to it. You really should never even speak about guns. You know NOTHING about them, and are afraid of them. You probably know more about how to send a man to the moon as you do about guns. ALL libs are that way. I do not need to share my views...Old cliché's have a TON of truth to them. "You would have to pry them from my cold dead hands" is one I am sure you and the other little wimp people who are afraid to defend your family need to study up on.

 

[NavigatorII]

You believe the 2nd gives you the right to own a machine gun, don't you?

 

[NavigatorII]

Which do you prefer Theo?

 

[fatman76]

You believe the 2nd gives you the right to own a machine gun, don't you?

I do. I don’t see where it limits it. Can you show me?

Now, via our system - we elected representatives that disagree - it’s against Federal law without a license. So I don’t and won’t own any automatic weapons without proper licensure. I generally follow the law, especially when it comes to federal firearm laws.

EDIT: I’m wrong below - I was confusing the assault weapons ban in 94 with the ban on machine guns.

Not shockingly, all three branches were in control of the Dems when the original ban was passed in the 90’s.

Still think it’s a violation of the 2A, and the only time you see anyone using them are criminals…

 

[NavigatorII]