gun control nuts

Normalization of Gun Violence Lies

https://townhall.com/columnists/eric...-lies-n2391264

Evil cannot be regulated away by the government. Likewise, guns cannot be confiscated short of amending the constitution. If it weren't a gun, it could have been a bomb. If it weren't a bomb, it could have been a truck. Evil seeks to harm through any means. What government can and should do is focus on dealing with the various scenarios from suicide to gang violence instead of wasting time on a one size fits all policy that flies in the face of the constitution. But to do that, the left must first stop making stuff up about guns.

https://townhall.com/columnists/eric...-lies-n2391264

Evil cannot be regulated away by the government. Likewise, guns cannot be confiscated short of amending the constitution. If it weren't a gun, it could have been a bomb. If it weren't a bomb, it could have been a truck. Evil seeks to harm through any means. What government can and should do is focus on dealing with the various scenarios from suicide to gang violence instead of wasting time on a one size fits all policy that flies in the face of the constitution. But to do that, the left must first stop making stuff up about guns. Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

Like the liars at Clinton News Network falsely communicating to their ignorant and "#Grubered" viewers that AR-15s are commonly sold with silencers and grenade launchers attached.

The debate about 2nd amendment rights is just that: A debate. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

It's not a "debate," because "debates" have rules.

We already have "gun control" in this country.

This discussion is just the opposite of "pest extermination" ...

.. if you look at the "fine print" on the contract of a pest "exterminator" it won't say they will "get rid" of the pests, and they will tell you "we control pests"!

Anyone who whines about "more guns equal more killing" is simply being hysterical about the issues involved. It's a catchy thing to say, but that's about it. So there idea of "gun control" is to limit the legitimate, qualified owner to a specific number of "guns"? The 2nd amendment doesn't specify .. "one person, one gun"!

Roughly a third of the households in this country ADMIT having a gun in the house. It is higher. Most likely. If someone calls me on the phone or knocks on my door and asks me if I have a "gun" in the house ... my answer is: None of your business. It isn't!

"gun control nuts" want to collect all the guns and prohibit guns from being possessed by ANYONE! So who gets guns in Mexico where there is a "prohibition" on the type of weapons one can possess? (Besides those delivered by the Obaminable administration, of course!).

The debate about 2nd amendment rights is just that: A debate.
Frankly a useless waste of time debate.
Because in order to remove it, that would require a constitutional amendment. Which would never pass.

The whole concept of gun control will have to comply with 2nd amendment, or laws that attempt to impose stupid crap will continue to get tossed by the courts, as quite a few overly broad laws have been. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

The problem is that the 2nd Amendment is so vague and open to interpretation. It wasn't until fairly recently that SCOTUS determined that the 2nd Amendment applied to individuals. i agree that it will never be removed. But congress, SCOTUS and other courts have made rulings that limit 2nd Amendment rights. Some weapons are banned. not everyone can own a gun. A person can't carry a gun everywhere he or she might want to. Most states require a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun.

The limitations on 2nd Amendment rights are not severe in my opinion. There will always be those that want no limitations.

There will always be those that want no limitations. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

But very few law abiding citizens.

The problem is that the 2nd Amendment is so vague and open to interpretation. It wasn't until fairly recently that SCOTUS determined that the 2nd Amendment applied to individuals. i agree that it will never be removed. But congress, SCOTUS and other courts have made rulings that limit 2nd Amendment rights. Some weapons are banned. not everyone can own a gun. A person can't carry a gun everywhere he or she might want to. Most states require a CHL in order to carry a concealed handgun.

The limitations on 2nd Amendment rights are not severe in my opinion. There will always be those that want no limitations. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

The Founding Fathers were clear on that point from the very beginning, speedy.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Cartwright, 1824.

The Founding Fathers were clear on that point from the very beginning, speedy. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Yet it wasn't until 2010 with Chicago v. McDonald that that was confirmed. And by a 5-4 vote by SCOTUS.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Cartwright, 1824."

I find that quote interesting in that it says "most of our states". It does not say the constitution of the country. It means that in some states it is not true. I am not arguing with you about the intent way back then, but the quote seems strange.

Yet it wasn't until 2010 with Chicago v. McDonald that that was confirmed. And by a 5-4 vote by SCOTUS.

"The constitutions of most of our States assert that all power is inherent in the people; that... it is their right and duty to be at all times armed." --Thomas Jefferson to J. Cartwright, 1824."

I find that quote interesting in that it says "most of our states". It does not say the constitution of the country. It means that in some states it is not true. I am not arguing with you about the intent way back then, but the quote seems strange.
Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

It was always clear except to the most feeble minded, speedy; so, the court had to 'splain it to you and your ignorant ilk.

"No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms." --Thomas Jefferson: Draft Va. Constitution, 1776.

Oh dam where can I get m-4 with grenade launcher , But really -And to me, the reason they are un-reported, is that the left wing media doesn't WANT TO show guns in a positive light.
Why are we blaming an object for what people do or don't do that's the hard question
Do we blame cars for getting drunk and killing people ?

Do we blame cars for getting drunk and killing people ? Originally Posted by rexdutchman

Cars aren't constitutionally protected either. Liberals like them.

I find that quote interesting in that it says "most of our states". It does not say the constitution of the country. It means that in some states it is not true. I am not arguing with you about the intent way back then, but the quote seems strange.
[/SIZE][/COLOR] Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

One must remember that in those days the states were more independent from the "centralized" government than they are today. We may start edging back to that philosophy with the current administration.



It wasn't until the late 1800's and early 1900's that the SCOTUS started applying the "Bill of Rights" to the States, which is one reason the States had their own "Bill of Rights" (as Texas does). In 1824 the Bill of Rights was only applied to the Federal Government which was the ruling of the SCOTUS after 1824. I suspect without taking an inventory the states not including a "right to bear arms" were in the area of the "New England" states. In the more rural areas with ranching and farming firearms were a necessity of survival.

Serious Question!

The problem is that the 2nd Amendment is so vague and open to interpretation. Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Are you kidding? How is "The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" Vague and open to interpretation?

Cars aren't constitutionally protected either. Liberals like them. Originally Posted by LexusLover

And i would LOVE to see how much howling and whining liberals would do, if we wanted to regulate voting as stringently as we do gun ownership..

It was always clear except to the most feeble minded, speedy; so, the court had to 'splain it to you and your ignorant ilk. Originally Posted by I B Hankering

The court has agreed with my POV in most cases. Weapons like the M-16 and AK-47 can't be sold. States are allowed to enact gun laws as they see fit, and people can contest those laws in a court of law. Personally I think the court system has done a rather good job of balancing 2nd Amendment rights with what I believe are logical restrictions.

I'm sorry if I have to 'splain these FACTS to you.

Are you kidding? How is "The right to keep and bare arms shall not be infringed" Vague and open to interpretation? Originally Posted by garhkal

it was the way it was written. it is a compromise language.

there were states that did not want to allow gun ownership. others wanted it limited to militia and others wanted the ability to own it whether they were in the militia or not.