4
   

Banning Guns: What Difference Would It Make?

 
 
parados
 
  2  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 07:49 am
@H2O MAN,
No matter how often the RW pundits are wrong, you are just going to keep believing them Spurt?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 07:58 am


Again, Parasite and his/her liberal democrats ilk hate individualism, they like their humans divided into groups.

The one group liberal democrats hate and fear the most is the black American individual that legally possesses firearms.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 09:03 am
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-snc7/793_387548827999831_1198356401_n.jpg
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 10:41 am
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

Foofie wrote:
In my opinion, you protesteth too much. The winds of change are blowing, with increased velocity, I believe. Probably because what trumps everything is that people that will be raising children need to feel their children are safe at school, or movies, etc.; since otherwise, the U.S. might wind up with no next generation to the degree we have had historically. In my opinion, the joys/need of target shooting, hunting, home protection, etc., are trumped by society's need to reproduce itself each generation with parents willing to expend a few decades of dedicated effort, without the fear of mass shootings of their children.


No, our Second Amendment rights stand undefeated and undefeatable.


Are you sure the definition of "arms" (as stated in the right to bear arms) will always include assault rifles? Considering the military has weapons aside from assault rifles, can people claim they have the right to bear tanks, drones, etc.? When the Second Amendment was written, arms was a pretty narrow definition; was it meant to expand to assault rifles, and who know what?

But you may keep up your grand pronouncements ("our Second Amendment rights stand undefeated and undefeatable") since they do sound like a great politician is making them (rather than an A2K poster). Not in the least bit pompous, in my opinion.
Foofie
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 10:47 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:

Foofie wrote:

In my opinion, you protesteth too much.


The winds of change may just blow up your skirt and show the world what you are hiding.



How long did you have to ponder to come up with that mature reply?
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 10:47 am
@Foofie,
our Second Amendment rights stand undefeated and undefeatable
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 10:52 am
@H2O MAN,
H2O MAN wrote:



Again, Parasite and his/her liberal democrats ilk hate individualism, they like their humans divided into groups.

The one group liberal democrats hate and fear the most is the black American individual that legally possesses firearms.


Don't include me in your statement above, since persecution of Jews has been from white folk, here and in Europe. White folk have been hostile to me much more than any Black folk. I call it "pagan pride."
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 10:56 am
@Foofie,


That's one of the reasons I specified black Americans and how
liberal democrats hate and fear them, especially when they are armed.
Liberal democrats prefer to keep black Americans on their plantation
and under their control. They would put them back in chains if they could.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Mon 14 Jan, 2013 11:20 am
http://i895.photobucket.com/albums/ac160/The_H2O_MAN/EBR_Ashley-widescreen_zps2c611440.jpg

What’s wrong with this picture?

Nothing, absolutely nothing, but with it comes a message; if you attempt to hurt her or her family, this is what you can expect to be confronted with.

What kind of person would you be if you denied her that option and what kind of Government would be afraid of a woman like her?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2013 07:08 am
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
oralloy wrote:
Foofie wrote:
In my opinion, you protesteth too much. The winds of change are blowing, with increased velocity, I believe. Probably because what trumps everything is that people that will be raising children need to feel their children are safe at school, or movies, etc.; since otherwise, the U.S. might wind up with no next generation to the degree we have had historically. In my opinion, the joys/need of target shooting, hunting, home protection, etc., are trumped by society's need to reproduce itself each generation with parents willing to expend a few decades of dedicated effort, without the fear of mass shootings of their children.


No, our Second Amendment rights stand undefeated and undefeatable.


Are you sure the definition of "arms" (as stated in the right to bear arms) will always include assault rifles?


Yes. The fact that an assault weapon is just a gun with harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip means there is no legitimate reason to ban them, and that means any such ban will violate Rational Basis Review.




Foofie wrote:
Considering the military has weapons aside from assault rifles, can people claim they have the right to bear tanks, drones, etc.?


Hard to see how those would be useful for self defense.

And possibly the government might come up with a legitimate reason to control them, as opposed to harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip, which there is no legitimate reason to control.



Foofie wrote:
When the Second Amendment was written, arms was a pretty narrow definition;


Not really.



Foofie wrote:
was it meant to expand to assault rifles, and who know what?


There is no "expansion". The Second Amendment is continuing as originally intended.
H2O MAN
 
  -2  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2013 09:13 am



Obama has a plan; it's called the Obama victim disarmament plan
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  -1  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2013 05:25 pm
http://www.a-human-right.com/s_racist.jpg
0 Replies
 
Foofie
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2013 08:20 pm
@oralloy,
oralloy wrote:

... The fact that an assault weapon is just a gun with harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip means there is no legitimate reason to ban them, and that means any such ban will violate Rational Basis Review...


The HARMFUL features are reflected in the speed that bullets can be fired, and the number of bullets that can be put into each clip.

Since, in my opinion, I consider your comment above an incorrect assessment, please refrain from commenting on my posts. You have your opinion, and I have mine. These opinions are based on our respective sets of experience, meaning we have very little in common. Please do not respond to my posts.
H2O MAN
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2013 08:42 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:

the number of bullets that can be put into each clip.


In your own words, what exactly is a 'clip'?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  0  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2013 08:50 pm
@Foofie,
Foofie wrote:
oralloy wrote:
... The fact that an assault weapon is just a gun with harmless cosmetic features like a pistol grip means there is no legitimate reason to ban them, and that means any such ban will violate Rational Basis Review...


The HARMFUL features are reflected in the speed that bullets can be fired,


Assault weapons do not fire any faster than non assault weapons. Therefore there is no such harmful feature.



Foofie wrote:
and the number of bullets that can be put into each clip.


Assault weapons have nothing to do with the number of bullets in a clip. Therefore there is no such harmful feature.



Foofie wrote:
Since, in my opinion, I consider your comment above an incorrect assessment, please refrain from commenting on my posts.


There is nothing incorrect in anything I've said. Your choice to deny reality does not in any way change that.

And I will continue to correct any incorrect statement that passes my way.



Foofie wrote:
You have your opinion, and I have mine. These opinions are based on our respective sets of experience, meaning we have very little in common.


Meaning I embrace reality and you deny reality.



Foofie wrote:
Please do not respond to my posts.


I will correct any untrue statement that crosses my path.
0 Replies
 
gungasnake
 
  3  
Reply Tue 15 Jan, 2013 10:49 pm
@Foofie,
Quote:
The HARMFUL features are reflected in the speed that bullets can be fired, and the number of bullets that can be put into each clip....


Sorry, but that evinces a near total ignorance on your part.

Assault rifles are typically low-powered weapons using small caliber ammunition and not even particularly fast ammunition i.e. something like 2900 fps for an M16 or 2200 for an AK as opposed to something more like 3500 - 4000 for a 243 or a 22/250, and the capacity of magazines doesn't really matter since they can be changed in a second or two.

On top of that people are now beginning to produce M16 magazines on 3D printers which will do to at least one of the assinine ideas of the gun-controllers what Plan-B has done to the "Right2Life(TM)" movement.
0 Replies
 
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2013 07:36 am

Oregon sheriff tells Biden he won't enforce new gun regulations
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2013 08:26 am
http://i947.photobucket.com/albums/ad311/arfcomcache/SleeperShooter/D1036E67-DBBB-4563-84CF-FE45D848646B-12417-00000CE0CF68D583.jpg
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2013 08:57 pm
@H2O MAN,


Oregon sheriff won't hold his position for long if he fails to fulfill his job as required by law. If he fails to enforce a court ruling he could well find himself in jail and ultimately unable to carry a gun himself because of a felony conviction.
H2O MAN
 
  1  
Reply Wed 16 Jan, 2013 08:58 pm
@parados,
The Resistance is Real
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
GAFFNEY: Whose side is Obama on? - Discussion by gungasnake
 
Copyright © 2020 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.03 seconds on 03/30/2020 at 04:16:28