Basically what your saying here is, your trolling just isn't gettin' it?

 

I 'll get to this later tonight, there's work to be done.

 

Blah, blah, blah...

Read his first post... He never wanted a serious discussion. At least not one where he couldn't tell people what they really think.

 

Judicial interpretation allows judges to project their values into the vague wording of the Constitution.

The United States is a representative democracy. When the teabaggers die of old age I want this to be clearly expressed in the new Constitution. A growing percentage of Americans favor socialism over capitalism. Polls have indicated that Bernie Sanders would defeat Donald Trump by a larger margin than Hillary Clinton will. Donald Trump won the Republican nomination because he is not a conventional conservative, but is more liberal than the other primary candidates on economic issues.

The political situation in the United States improves one funeral at a time.

 

Leftists keep saying times have changed. That IS the problem morons you keep changing shit but you will never understand it. Yea everything changes but some things should not

 

And in a case when the State does not want their Guard Federalized, who wins?

 

Not true. I'm just trying to clarify what your position is. First you state that you think nobody has a need for an AK47. And that you don't want to ban other weapons. Then when I inform you that they make up an insignificant number of gun deaths, you expand your definition to include the vast majority of guns by volume in circulation in the country. I then asked you if it was fair to claim that you would like to ban all semi automatic weapons.
The reason I gave an explanation of weapon categories was not to mock you. It was to clarify the terms, so when I refer to a type of weapon and you refer to a weapon, we can make sure we are on the same page talking about the same thing. If you're claiming that you don't think anyone should have a semi automatic weapon, it's fair to ask if you realise handguns are typically semi automatic since you previously said that you didn't want to ban them.

It's not that I'm fixed in my ways. Compromise does not mean I ignore constitutional rights and support a blanket ban of weapons. I'm personally interested in finding ways to keep the guns out the hands of criminals and unsafe people, without restricting weapons to law abiding healthy citizens. I'm in favor of legislation that the NRA is against, such as knowing who the people are who possess guns. I'm not a hardliner. You can say your in favor of a ban, you can give your reasoning, but that does not mean I have to agree with you.

 

There are many people here claiming that the 2nd amendment was written with just muskets in mind. I was going to write a long post detailing a number of reasons why you are flat out wrong. When I came across this video.

 

No, you're trying to assign my position to me.

 

Do you want to ban semi automatic handguns? I'm asking the question because I still do not know the answer.

 

Ok, what did I say earlier?

Land owners should only be allowed to vote...

Home owners should only be allowed to vote...

Business owners should only be allowed to vote...

Natural born citizens should only be allowed to vote...

That should just about cover it.

As for Puerto Rico, so fucking what....half of the Americans dont pay federal fucking government income tax.

Congress makes the laws, passes the laws, such as the STOCK Act.

 

The list of firearms, including pistols, rifles, and shotguns, that are semi-automatic is a very long list and includes numerous firearms that the anti's don't even look at. Anyone truly interested in understanding the term "semi-automatic" should look through a copy of "Shotgun News". This is a newspaper format gun sales catalog and includes all kinds of firearms. The list would contain numerous .22 long rifle rimfire guns, that although lethal if used properly, are not the gansta's love child, as well as numerous rifles sold as purpose built hunting rifles such as the Remington 7400.

Making a blanket statement about banning semi-auto firearms simple tells me that the person has very little knowledge about the topic, and is simply repeating what someone else has said.

 

If there another dividing line, such as the one between full automatic and the semi-automatic, what would it be?

The idea that there are some semi-automatic weapons which aren't preferred by the criminal element does not make them harmless. If you were to argue against a semi-automatic(one which fires one bullet for every squeeze of the trigger, which would include double action revolvers) ban, claiming some semi-automatics are viewed as inadequate for mass murder, seems a specious claim.

At the risk of sounding like one of those people that don't know nuttin bout guns, what could a semi-automatic weapon accomplish, which a similar non-automatic(manual action) weapon could not do?

 

Well, depending on the disposition of the, shall we call the shooter an offender, a bolt action rifle is generally capable of firing a higher power round, and there fore can shoot through barriers more readily than the typical Evil Black Rifle. Recently however, the development of rifles like the Barrett and others are capable of firing .50 BMG which is one hell of a round make the power argument moot. It must be noted however that the Barrett and others of its ilk are anything but handy. The average American or even European hunting specific rifle is capable of tremendous destruction. The only real difference is of course rate of fire. This is the reason that many of the offenders choose semi-automatic firearms. When the offender can spray and pray, the higher the rate of fire, the higher the level of destruction. Years ago a fellow climbed a tower on a Texas college campus and killed a number of people using typical hunting rifles.
The weapon chosen by the offender is based on the temperament of the offender, and of course what is readily available. The use of a blade weapon on the German train is an example of what is readily at hand and can be concealed. Japanese madmen used nerve gas on a subway, The Federal building in Oklahoma City was destroyed using farm fertilizer. Most people who paid any attention in college chemistry, can if they choose, create very destructive explosives.
As a twelve year old, with absolutely no training other than talking to other kids, I was able to use common match heads to create depleated C02 cartridge bombs OR rockets depending on how they were assembled. In 1958, the Principal of Franklin Sherman Elementary School even monitored us while we fired this type of rockets during recess. Can you even imagine a Principal doing that today, or the ramifications if he or she did.
The weapon chosen by the offender is not the problem, rather it is the liberal stance that people with mental problems can not be made to take medications that treat their ailments. Don't poor me about a persons right to determine if they should or should not take necessary medications, if that person poses a danger to the public at large. Many of the recent offenders have demonstrated by prior acts that they need treatment, however liberalists attitudes allow them to roam free and dangerous.
MORE GUN LAWS. There are something like 20,000 gun laws on the books in America. Do any of you think that more of the same is going to make any difference? Think Prohibition and the affect it had on drinking in America. Generally it is considered that the main effect of prohibition was to reduce Americans palate for quality to a very low standard for two generations. That and to make bootleggers very rich. Yeah banning certain types of firearms will work to reduce violence, just like the War on Drugs reduced drug use in America. Hell they are even making mind altering drugs legal in some States now. Yeah that worked sooooo well.

 

I agree sir. As voters our numbers are our only chance. Fuck as it is our primary votes do not count the electoral ones truly decide but if we don't bitch no one will be heard. I own to protect me and my own not to mention my fellow brother

 

i dont feel the need to own a gun.

probably because i dont live in a society that has such a crazy and paranoid attitude towards them.

 

An Owsley County (Kentucky] homeowner shot two of three robbery suspects Tuesday, killing one, according to Kentucky State Police.

Police received a call just before 5 a.m. about three people entering a home on Ky. 846 near Booneville, trooper Robert Purdy said. He said he thought the call came from the homeowner.

Police later Tuesday identified the suspects as Jamie Farthing, 37, Charles Harris II, 42, and Linda Peters, 36. All are from Booneville.

The homeowner shot Harris after he pulled a gun on the homeowner, police said. The homeowner also shot Peters in the arm. Harris died at the scene, police said.

Peters was taken to the University of Kentucky Chandler Hospital in Lexington with injuries that weren’t life threatening.

Police arrested and charged Farthing with first-degree robbery charge. He was taken to the Three Forks Regional Jail. Police said the investigation is ongoing.

*not_secure_link*www.kentucky.com/news/state/article91867252.html