Dems introduce HR Bill 5717 severely attacking 2nd Amendment rights

[Svnla]

I get it now!! You want to be able to say witrh pride someday that you had a gun or guns and you used them to kill somebody who was hungry who was breaking in to your house or car to steal food that you had hoarded or TP to wipe their kids bottom with and because you had a gun, you with glee loaded that gun and shot them before offering perhaps to feed them....
That self defense line of crap is just that! Somebody who is hungry is not going to harm your sisy ass to steal food from you hoarders......
Then you make the claim that having a gun deters others....well I am sorry but that really is not true.
People like you all brag and tell your friends and if somebody was going to plan to hurt you they would do it when you had no access to your gun ......
You gun nutters are all a like, the reality is you really want to use your gun to kill another human.......but until you have to shoot at somebody you never really know if you have the stomach to shoot! Going out to the range and simulating shooting somebody is not near the same!
Have fun explaining to your kids why you shot somebody who was tired, poor and desperately hungry....
I know thi will fall on deaf ears or some bullshit excuse why I am wrong! Carry on Comrades!

Yeah, sure. Look at all of the "tired, poor parents" just want to feed their "hungry children" at the LA/Rodney King riot. Same for Fergunson/M. Brown riot. Want to go on with your false narrative? LOL.

Look here, one lonesome woman used gun to defense against not one, not two, not three, not four, but FIVE attackers - https://www.wsbradio.com/news/natio...ob-her-atm-police-say/W4txREcKMZik857MmYIMhM/

What a gun nutter, right? Look at those "poor and hungry" parents just want to feed their hungry. kids. How dare that woman shot them? LOL.

Oh, no reply to my post above about the armed vs. unarmed shopkeepers in the riots? What were the tools used to defense themselves? Uh huh.

 

[Svnla]

Do you realize that your interpretation of the second is a rather new interpretation and only made in 2008?

New interpretation? Nope. Been that way for me for a long time. Long before 2008. Wanna try again?

 

[shortylickens]

I dont know why we do this.
We have the same fucking conversation every time any gun issue comes up and its pointless.
Nobody ever changes their position. No one.
Is it possible to guide this thread back to the original point? That theres a bill on the floor?
Would be more productive to talk about whether it has a chance to get thru and why it matters or doesn't matter during a virus outbreak and quarantine.

 

[TheVrolok]

New interpretation? Nope. Been that way for me for a long time. Long before 2008. Wanna try again?

You don't know much about Heller, do you?

 

[Svnla]

You don't know much about Heller, do you?

DC vs. Heller? I have guns legally way before 2008. Wanna try again?

 

[TheVrolok]

DC vs. Heller? I have guns legally way before 2008. Wanna try again?

lol, you think I was implying that Heller said you could legally own guns? How about you go do some reading and then get back here.

For the record, I've also owned guns prior to 2008.

 

[Svnla]

lol, you think I was implying that Heller said you could legally own guns? How about you go do some reading and then get back here.

For the record, I've also owned guns prior to 2008.

See my post above about me not pretend to be a scholar or expert on the Constitution. Unlike certain members. Wanna slit hair? Knock yourself out.

 

[TheVrolok]

See my post above about me not pretend to be a scholar or expert on the Constitution. Unlike certain members. Wanna slit hair? Knock yourself out.

So you're argument against gun control is "constitution!" Then, you say you're really not sure about the history/interpretation of the constitution as it relates to the 2A.

Well, okay.

As I've said in all of these gun threads, I don't really care whether someone owns guns or not, I'd just like to see some intellectual consistency about it.

 

[Svnla]

So you're argument against gun control is "constitution!" Then, you say you're really not sure about the history/interpretation of the constitution as it relates to the 2A.

Well, okay.

As I've said in all of these gun threads, I don't really care whether someone owns guns or not, I'd just like to see some intellectual consistency about it.

All I know is I have the right to own guns based on 2A. As I said above, until you have the vote to change 2A, it is the law of the land. Period. Full stop

You want to talk about "history/interpretation" of the Constitution to make you feel so "intellectual", knock yourself out, ok?

 

[TheVrolok]

All I know is I have the right to own guns based on 2A. As I said above, until you have the vote to change 2A, it is the law of the land. Period. Full stop

You want to talk about "history/interpretation" of the Constitution to make you feel so "intellectual", knock yourself out, ok?

Who said you don't have the right to own guns? Why are you creating a strawman? We're talking about gun control.

 

[Fenixgoon]

All I know is I have the right to own guns based on 2A. As I said above, until you have the vote to change 2A, it is the law of the land. Period. Full stop

You want to talk about "history/interpretation" of the Constitution to make you feel so "intellectual", knock yourself out, ok?

You do have rights. But you don't have*unlimited* rights.

 

[Svnla]

You do have rights. But you don't have*unlimited* rights.

I understand. Just as 1A would not give you the right to yell "fire" in a crowed theater. I have no problem with back ground check and other restrictions such as machine gun/bazooka/hand grenade. I do have problem with politicians with their personal agenda to set up their own "this is what you should do because I say/think so and it is good for you" system. Nope, nada, zip. No way, no how.

 

[Paladin3]

Firearm ownership is already heavily regulated in America. Most gun owners agree that some folks simply shouldn't own guns. It's a lie to say most of us want "unlimited" gun rights, even though a small, vocal minority think there should be zero gun laws. It's a lie to accuse the majority of gun owners of such.

What most of us object to and are fed up with is proposed gun restrictions that will only disarm the lawful gun owners and take away currently legal guns being used overwhelmingly for legal, harmless purposes and self-defense.

We're tired of being your whipping boys and girls and having the criminal acts of murderers blamed on those of us who obey the law. We're not sacrificing any more of our gun rights to make gun-grabbers feel good about having at least tired to do something. Partial bans aren't going to work, just like they haven't in the past, and a complete ban is a pie-in-the-sky dream.

 

[Paladin3]

I dont know why we do this.
We have the same fucking conversation every time any gun issue comes up and its pointless.
Nobody ever changes their position. No one.
Is it possible to guide this thread back to the original point? That theres a bill on the floor?
Would be more productive to talk about whether it has a chance to get thru and why it matters or doesn't matter during a virus outbreak and quarantine.

The bill is still in committee and I'm not sure it's even come up for debate. The bill doesn't try to ban all guns, but does ban some, and would give government unprecedented powers that would amount to pretty much a defacto ban. Anyone the government doesn't feel should have a gun could be denied without having committed any crime or any due process allowed. It would also make getting a licence to own a gun rather expensive, thereby unfairly burdening poor gun owners.

And the reason we end up having these debates if often because of the lies and childish attacks made at the expense of lawful gun owners. We're not debating here in a vacuum. There are lots of folks who read these forums without ever posting or being members. If someone is going to attack me and tell me I only own guns because I thrill to the idea of killing hungry folks, don't care about dead children or have a small pee-pee, I am going to respond.

 

[JEDIYoda]

See my post above about me not pretend to be a scholar or expert on the Constitution. Unlike certain members. Wanna slit hair? Knock yourself out.

I do remember you saying that...but if you are claiming ignorance, then perhaps you shouldn`t be making claims that in your own words you know nothing about....ubless your just another one of those...you know...GunNutters,,,

 

[JEDIYoda]

The bill is still in committee and I'm not sure it's even come up for debate. The bill doesn't try to ban all guns, but does ban some, and would give government unprecedented powers that would amount to pretty much a defacto ban. Anyone the government doesn't feel should have a gun could be denied without having committed any crime or any due process allowed. It would also make getting a licence to own a gun rather expensive, thereby unfairly burdening poor gun owners.

And the reason we end up having these debates if often because of the lies and childish attacks made at the expense of lawful gun owners. We're not debating here in a vacuum. There are lots of folks who read these forums without ever posting or being members. If someone is going to attack me and tell me I only own guns because I thrill to the idea of killing hungry folks, don't care about dead children or have a small pee-pee, I am going to respond.

here I fixed this for you.....
No the reason we end up having these debates is often because of the lies and childish attacks made towards well meaning elected officials to try to get things under control!
It seems like the Gunnutters are debating in a vacuum. There are lots of folks who read these forums without ever posting or being members. If someone is going to attack GunNutters and tell them they only own guns because they thrill to the idea of killing hungry folks, then they are probably correct! don't care about dead children who are killed by guns or if us GunN utters have small pee-pee`s, I am still going to go full balistic to keep your precious guns!

 

[Svnla]

I do remember you saying that...but if you are claiming ignorance, then perhaps you shouldn`t be making claims that in your own words you know nothing about....ubless your just another one of those...you know...GunNutters,,,

Ignorance? Unlike many posters in this site, I don't spend about 5 minutes on Wiki and then claim myself as "expert" on a subject. You dig?

Again, are you going to reply to my post abovet about the LA/Rodney King riot and Fergunson/Brown riot? Remember how you claimed desperation parents just want to feed their hungry children? See the link I posted about a woman save herself against 5 attackers and what tool did she use to save her lfe? You were saying something about "ignorance"? Uh huh. LOL. Until you have to gut to reply, hit the road, troll.

 

[Paladin3]

here I fixed this for you.....
No the reason we end up having these debates is often because of the lies and childish attacks made towards well meaning elected officials to try to get things under control!
It seems like the Gunnutters are debating in a vacuum. There are lots of folks who read these forums without ever posting or being members. If someone is going to attack GunNutters and tell them they only own guns because they thrill to the idea of killing hungry folks, then they are probably correct! don't care about dead children who are killed by guns or if us GunN utters have small pee-pee`s, I am still going to go full balistic to keep your precious guns!

Thank you for proving my point.

 

[TheVrolok]

We're tired of being your whipping boys and girls and having the criminal acts of murderers blamed on those of us who obey the law. We're not sacrificing any more of our gun rights to make gun-grabbers feel good about having at least tired to do something. Partial bans aren't going to work, just like they haven't in the past, and a complete ban is a pie-in-the-sky dream.

Oh no, it's not all emotion and feels at all. We're so incredibly bored of the same emotional whining about victim hood and claims that "nothing works, if we do something it's gotta work 100% or it isn't worth it, no partial mitigation, etc. Etc."

You're beyond banal at this point.

 

[JEDIYoda]

Thank you for proving my point.

I ws pretty accurate about your behavior, huh?? Who would have figured...the moment you claimed to not care about dead children......you are a real work of art.....

 

[JEDIYoda]

had you acted like an caring adult and worded it this way it would have helped your cause, instead of being a buffoon and saying you don`t care about dead children.....

Have you worded it...something like I understand that children are being killed, but what are we suppose to do about? Is there a comprimise.......sadly nothing seems to be working...
Instead you go full blown goofy on us.....