Glen Contrarian
DP Veteran
- Joined
- Jun 21, 2013
- Messages
- 17,688
- Reaction score
- 8,046
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Progressive
what is hilarious is this claim he made yesterday when he now wants to ban all sorts of things
and this
Exactly where have I ever said I want to ban all sorts of guns? That's just you making up crap again. That said, there are guns that the civilian community simply doesn't need. Besides, where does one draw the line? Is the NRA going to come out next year saying it's our 2A rights to have fully-auto assault rifles? Or how about machine guns? Or automatic shotguns? Or grenade launchers? Or - in the not-too-distant future - firearms on drones? Where does one draw the line? And how many people have to die before we agree on where that line must be drawn? "It's my 18 y.o. son's 2A RIGHT to bring that automatic shotgun to school!"
Does it fire the same round as an M-16?
I didn't say that they would be used for home invasion or robbery, did I? I referred to assassination, didn't I? Outside of war and sporting competitions, assassination is pretty much all they're good for. Focus, guy.
As you know very well, I never said the cell phone was a weapon - that's you twisting words (again). I said it was something necessary for home defense - and I said that because while a homes phone lines can be cut, that's not so easy for cell phones.
You say that no one needs a cell phone. Dude, the ability to communicate is crucial in any crisis situation, whether at home or in business or on the street or in war. The better one's ability to communicate, the better his or her odds is in a crisis situation. What part that you don't get, I really don't understand. Give me a choice between a gun and a working cell phone, I'll pick the cell phone any day - because I can easily block the perp trying to force his way into my room, and the police are only minutes away. On the other hand, if I have a gun and no working cell phone, it becomes a gunfight that I may win but that I also might lose...and I'd have no hope of backup, rescue, or EMS.
Tactically speaking, in the modern world the ability to effectively communicate trumps having a gun on hand any day of the week.
Many do, but I have one also that fires .22LR. They can be had in just about every rifle and many pistol calibers. Oh, and the last few real attempts to kill a sitting president were done with cheap junk ass guns. Hinkly and Oswald. I forgot what Squeeky Fromme used to try to shoot Ford
(1) Look it up. Try Googling AR 15 calibers.
(2) I missed the part about the assassination. So, could you direct me to a case where a sniper rifle was used in an assassination? Civilian, of course. Or are you solving a problem we don't have?
(2a) Now the sniper rifle has another use. Do you advocate the banning of sporting weapons? Or just sniper rifles used in non existent assassination attempts?
(3) You did infer that the phone served as a defense item. Actually I agree with you. I have one. I do not consider it necessary, but I do not advocate banning them. I would call the authorities. But in 5 minutes, a fit male can run a mile. In the meantime, you rely on your barricade, I on my weapon. Again, whatever method works best for you. I might barricade myself in a secure area if given the chance, but I will take a weapon with me.
Again, where do we draw the line?
Again, where do we draw the line?
I knew that it did. The point is, claiming an AR-15 isn't an assault rifle when it can fire the same round as an assault rifle...and don't say "but it's not an automatic" line because an assault rifle doesn't have to be automatic to be an assault rifle.
Do we have to wait until it happens? That would be like saying, "there's no instances of civilians using grenades to kill each other, so why ban them?"
Y'know, I really wouldn't mind if we'd know that they could only be used in sporting events...but there's no practical way to limit it to one use and not the other. And as they become more available, it's only a matter of time before they are used for assassination.
If you have a weapon, good for you. Me, I'm middle-aged with a bum right leg - I'm not running anywhere. But I'm strong enough to do what I need to do to quickly and effectively barricade my wife and myself and wait for help. And the older one gets, the more one recognizes the need to be able to quickly communicate.
lets see
lets look at the language of the 2A and its intent
citizens should have the same weapons that militia men should have
that seems to mean an assault rifle etc
How about making sure any citizen over the age of 18 with a clean record can own anything civilian police departments use for self defense in a civilian environment
Nowhere in the actual text of the 2nd Amendment does it say any of that. Let's at least be honest and go by what it actually says, not by what you wish it said.
so why don't you tell us what YOU think it says
I am going by all the documents generated at the same time.
and given that there IS NOTHING in the constitution that discusses the federal government having ANY POWER to regulate arms, what were the founders thinking?
find me some constitutional language that PROPERLY allows the federal government to deprive citizens of the standard issue military rifle
Your statement is false. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution - paragraphs 1, 3, 16 and 18 all provide ample authorization for Congress to exercise authority over regulation of weapons.
so why don't you tell us what YOU think it says
I am going by all the documents generated at the same time.
I don't have to tell you what I think it says, I can read the specific words contained within it.
None of which are enshrined in the founding documents of the United States, nor having any power in law. You're just trying to get it to say what you want it to say when the actual words don't support your desires.
Try again.
Two can play this game.
What say you to this similarly unlikely and absurd situation:
Thieves break in to steal your TV, and you go downstairs to check it out. As is almost always the case, the thieves only want your stuff and to leave. They threaten you to go away, and they start to make good their escape.
Suddenly you dive for your gun cabinet near your TV, throw it open, and one of the thieves, upon realising his life is in mortal danger because some moron intends to shoot him, hits you over the head with his crowbar.
At what point do you wish you had not had any guns in the house?
I want you to tell us what sort of weapons were intended to be protected
so tell us rather than playing evasive games
what is the limit on the number of people you could kill that you would allow someone to buy in terms of a gun within a few minutes.
that is dishonest. there is nothing in that that mentions firearms owned by private citizens
I want you to spell out those sections and explain where firearms regulation is mentioned
How the commerce power has been transformed is a long story. But in essence, Congress now claims the power to regulate any matter that affects the national economy. Such a reading of the Commerce Clause swallows up the Framers’ careful enumeration of powers, making the federal government omnipotent.
I want you to tell us what sort of weapons were intended to be protected
so tell us rather than playing evasive games
Your statement is false. Article I Section 8 of the Constitution - paragraphs 1, 3, 16 and 18 all provide ample authorization for Congress to exercise authority over regulation of weapons.
these powers were ratified by the states in June 1787 making them binding......the bill of rights was passed in DEC 1791, making them binding, and placing a restriction on the federal government, ...stating "congress will make no law" which infringes on the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
The Bill of Rights does not say that. You made it up.
The Preamble to The Bill of Rights....
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?