Why we have a 2nd amendment and must keep it.

UncleBuck said:
please find the quote where i say that i hold the fed gov in the highest regard.

this should be fun, just like watching you explain the non-partisan nature of "unskewed polls".
Click to expand...

You post statistics from the federal government like it is gospel...

But suddenly, local cops are obviously corrupt... Where do you think the feds get their statistics from shithead?
 
NLXSK1 said:
Machine guns are not infringed, they require an FFL and a shitload of ammo...

Try again skippy...
Click to expand...

you fucking moron.

In 1934, Congress banned private ownership of machine guns, fully automatic guns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers and flash suppressors. These weapons and attachments, Congress said, had no legitimate purposes, such as hunting or self-defense. In 1939, the Supreme Court upheld*this 1934 act, and Monday, the Supreme Court affirmed its primary reasoning. Other laws restricting cheap throwaway weapons, which are plainly intended for crime, have been upheld. The Supreme Court’s new decision reiterates that gun rights may be regulated to prevent the spread of dangerous firearms, while allowing possession of guns intended for use in lawful ways.

http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-east...courts-best-decision-ever-for-gun-regulation/
 
NLXSK1 said:
You post statistics from the federal government like it is gospel...

But suddenly, local cops are obviously corrupt... Where do you think the feds get their statistics from shithead?
Click to expand...

all statistics put out by the fed gov are from local police departments?

you are too dumb to even entertain me today. i'm off to take my dog to the dog park.*

watching my dog sniff a border collie's ass holds more interest than engaging your retarded arguments today.
 
UncleBuck said:
nice slippery slope, moron.

even scalia says infringements are perfectly consistent with the second amendment.
Click to expand...

I am a moron?

They are now trying to force cigarette smokers to get a prescription from their doctor before they can smoke... In OREGON....

http://rt.com/usa/news/oregon-law-state-nicotine-697/

Trying to quit smoking? You might want to move to Oregon. A new bill would classify cigarettes as a Schedule III controlled substance, making them illegal to purchase without a doctor’s prescription.Portland Rep. Mitch Greenlick introduced the bill in the Oregon State Legislature in an attempt to reduce the number of addicted people, but has received criticism from smokers and non-smokers alike who believe the initiative is not feasible.
Under Greenlick’s proposal, smokers would be charged with a misdemeanor and face up to one year’s imprisonment and a $6,250 fine for being caught with a cigarette or any of the other Schedule III controlled substances, including ketamine, lysergic acid and anabolic steroids.
The bill also prohibits the State Board of Pharmacy from adopting rules that exempt any nicotine products from the legislation, which would include chewing tobacco, nicotine patches and gums, among others. Law enforcement agencies would have the right to inspect all products that they believe might contain nicotine.
Click to expand...

We all know of course that the politicians never employ the slippery slope... Yeah... Go Fuck yourself...
 
UncleBuck said:
nice slippery slope, moron.

even scalia says infringements are perfectly consistent with the second amendment.
Click to expand...

No, the Supreme Court considers these, case by case. They rule the law in question does not constitute infringement. Or, in very many cases, they rule that they do infringe and so rule against the law.

So, just like in the crowded theater, there are times that we can yell FIRE and sometimes not. The test is always actual harm of others.

So, the broad regulations, mostly in the various States, are not considered infringements, at all. They are examples of setting the rights of the many above the few. The few that are felons, and other identified exclusion, not infringement.

But, the gun debate is an example of setting the rights of the few, the ones that actually fear guns, (not the partisan, Agenda hounds) setting those few ABOVE the rights of the many, many Constitutionally enabled gun owners. And it's being done as psycho war. 9 year olds jeering another as a murderer over a piece of paper shaped like an "L" That is the slope to generational, unindented consequence, fellow Americans.

Your Right is not infringed by any one thing, but it leads overall to bad ju-ju. Best to let the States work it out.
 
UncleBuck said:
all statistics put out by the fed gov are from local police departments?

you are too dumb to even entertain me today. i'm off to take my dog to the dog park.*

watching my dog sniff a border collie's ass holds more interest than engaging your retarded arguments today.
Click to expand...

You should refer to your wife with more respect than that...
 
UncleBuck said:
you fucking moron.

In 1934, Congress banned private ownership of machine guns, fully automatic guns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers and flash suppressors. These weapons and attachments, Congress said, had no legitimate purposes, such as hunting or self-defense. In 1939, the Supreme Court upheld*this 1934 act, and Monday, the Supreme Court affirmed its primary reasoning. Other laws restricting cheap throwaway weapons, which are plainly intended for crime, have been upheld. The Supreme Court’s new decision reiterates that gun rights may be regulated to prevent the spread of dangerous firearms, while allowing possession of guns intended for use in lawful ways.

http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-east...courts-best-decision-ever-for-gun-regulation/
Click to expand...

No, you fucking moron...

The Firearm Owners Protection Act of 1986 addressed the abuses noted in the 1982 Senate Judiciary Subcommittee report. Among the reforms intended to loosen restrictions on gun ownership were the reopening of interstate sales of long guns on a limited basis, legalization of ammunition shipments through the U.S. Postal Service (a partial repeal of the Gun Control Act), removal of the requirement for record keeping on sales of non-armor-piercing ammunition, and federal protection of transportation of firearms through states where possession of those firearms would otherwise be illegal. However, the Act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement. Thus, in the ensuing years, the limited supply of these arms available to civilians has caused an enormous increase in their price, with most costing in excess of $10,000. Regarding these fully automatic firearms owned by private citizens in the United States, political scientist Earl Kruschke said "approximately 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime."[SUP][3][/SUP]
Click to expand...


  • 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime."[SUP][3][/SUP]


    ​
Click to expand...
 
NLXSK1 said:
I am a moron?

They are now trying to force cigarette smokers to get a prescription from their doctor before they can smoke... In OREGON....

http://rt.com/usa/news/oregon-law-state-nicotine-697/



We all know of course that the politicians never employ the slippery slope... Yeah... Go Fuck yourself...
Click to expand...

you drudge up a retarded bill that's destined to die in committee as some sort of trump card?

don't commit suicide, ya sad little fuck.
 
NLXSK1 said:
No, you fucking moron...

However, the Act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement.
Click to expand...

nice try, but you're only reinforcing my point.
 
UncleBuck said:
nice try, but you're only reinforcing my point.
Click to expand...

I even double quoted the part you were supposed to pay attention to... I may have to resort to CRAYON...



    • 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime."[SUP][3][/SUP]




    ​




There are currently nearly 200,000 AUTOMATIC weapons available in the USA... If you have an FFL and enough money you can buy them....

Embarassing what someone has to go through to make you see reality...
 
NLXSK1 said:
I even double quoted the part you were supposed to pay attention to... I may have to resort to CRAYON...



    • 175,000 automatic firearms have been licensed by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, and Firearms (the federal agency responsible for administration of the law) and evidence suggests that none of these weapons has ever been used to commit a violent crime."[SUP][3][/SUP]




    ​



    *

There are currently nearly 200,000 AUTOMATIC weapons available in the USA... If you have an FFL and enough money you can buy them....

Embarassing what someone has to go through to make you see reality...
Click to expand...

lol, there you go talking about reality again when you know you're not qualified to do so.

maybe you should talk about how all those extra hoops are totally not an infringement and how what you posted backs up exactly what i posted.
 
UncleBuck said:
lol, there you go talking about reality again when you know you're not qualified to do so.

maybe you should talk about how all those extra hoops are totally not an infringement and how what you posted backs up exactly what i posted.
Click to expand...


You can lead a buck to water but you cant make him think....
 
NLXSK1 said:
You can lead a buck to water but you cant make him think....
Click to expand...

let's review, shall we?

i posted this:

In 1934, Congress banned private ownership of machine guns, fully automatic guns, sawed-off shotguns, silencers and flash suppressors. These weapons and attachments, Congress said, had no legitimate purposes, such as hunting or self-defense. In 1939, the Supreme Court upheld*this 1934 act, and Monday, the Supreme Court affirmed its primary reasoning.

and you rebutted with this:

However, the Act also contained a provision that banned the sale of machine guns manufactured after the date of enactment to civilians, restricting sales of these weapons to the military and law enforcement.

this all started over your moronic absolutism with regards to "shall not be infringed". so tell me about how this supports your retarded notion of absolutism.
 
UncleBuck said:
i have no need for a gun. i have installed enough preventative security that i'll be fine with just an axe and a dog.

guns are fine, i just don't see why anyone would need an arsenal of military grade weapons left unlocked about their house where their kid can get them. "because i can!", i suppose.
Click to expand...
Who can get "military-grade weapons"? Those are class III or tighter in terms of restrictions. cn
 
londonfog said:
Please do tell what right has been infringed upon ???? Last time I checked you have every right to bear arms and still can. The question is how much arms do you need to protect yourself ???? My .40 cal has a 30 round magazine,but I never use it. To damn big to go concealed. I still can get the job using 13 +1 with the G23 or 9 +1 with the G27...again I'm cool with limits on magazine capacities if it can stop a crazy from doing so much fucking damage
Click to expand...

The right to bear arms is sharply limited in many places and outright forbidden in others. Every metropolitan area east of the Mississippi and north of Richmond jumps to mind. The lawmakers are treating bearing arms (carrying a gun or sword) as a privilege to be arbitrarily denied. I'd say that that is at least an excellent candidate for infringement. cn
 
londonfog said:
Please do tell what right has been infringed upon ???? Last time I checked you have every right to bear arms and still can. The question is how much arms do you need to protect yourself ???? My .40 cal has a 30 round magazine,but I never use it. To damn big to go concealed. I still can get the job using 13 +1 with the G23 or 9 +1 with the G27...again I'm cool with limits on magazine capacities if it can stop a crazy from doing so much fucking damage
Click to expand...

I'm glad you're cool with, but I'm not. YOU can be cool with all you want.

I'm cool with banning all meat as long as it prevents some crazy like Michael Vick from thinking torturing animals is fun.

It's all cool as long as you're the one cool with the topic you're cool with.

Here's a list I'm cool with banning:

Hunting
Fishing
Gay sex
Sports video games
Soccer, especially video soccer (fooseball is ok)
Hard liquor
Corona beer ( other beers are ok)
Everyone but white people ( People suck. Go animals! But I don't want to die, you cool with it?)
Digital TVs (CRTs rule bitches!)
Sony Game systems (fuck you Sony)
Wii (stop casual gaming, if Granny doesn't like COD, then she needs to GTFO and cook me some vegan cookies instead)
Insulin (Stop drinking up my OJ when you have an attack. It's my OJ!)
Otaku & weeaboos (you'll never be Japsnese, give it up!)
SUVs
Clowns
Cats
Religion
Apartments
Police
Politicians
Lawyers
Liberals
Socialists
Communists
Feminists
Country music
Wearing your underwear past your ass cheeks

I'm cool with banning all that for now. Since banning will stop all these actions, I'll find more stuff to ban once I notice whatever else annoys me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top