Who needs an assault rifle when you can have a 16 round SHOTGUN?

[TJHall1]

Still nobody wants to define an assault rifle, or give specifics on what kind of guns they want to restrict??? OP??? Strong opinions to lack such details.

No firearms at all for the mentally unstable, violent, druggies, spousal abusers, etc. I thought I'd made my stance pretty clear about a handful of times between this and the other thread.

Courses and licensures for firearm purchases.

 

[GarnetPild]

No firearms at all for the mentally unstable, violent, druggies, spousal abusers, etc. I thought I'd made my stance pretty clear about a handful of times between this and the other thread.

Courses and licensures for firearm purchases.

So no specific guns you want to restrict? Just want to make people get a license from the government to excersize their Right?

 

[TJHall1]

So no specific guns you want to restrict? Just want to make people get a license from the government to excersize their Right?

I already said in the other thread I'm against banning anything. I know reading is hard.
Red flag laws to keep guns out of people's hands who shouldn't have them. Yes, courses so people know what the fuck they're doing before being given weapons. Better background checks.

 

[GarnetPild]

I already said in the other thread I'm against banning anything. I know reading is hard.
Red flag laws to keep guns out of people's hands who shouldn't have them. Yes, courses so people know what the fuck they're doing before being given weapons. Better background checks.

What do you want, as far as better background checks?

 

[TheRealJohnCooper]

No firearms at all for the mentally unstable, violent, druggies, spousal abusers, etc. I thought I'd made my stance pretty clear about a handful of times between this and the other thread.

Courses and licensures for firearm purchases.

You have a constitutional right to carry a firearm… Why would you need a a license tor something that is already a guaranteed God given right?

 

[GarnetPild]

You have a constitutional right to carry a firearm… Why would you need a a license tor something that is already a guaranteed God given right?

License = Permission from the government...which I sure do not need to excersize my God given Rights, guaranteed by the Constitution. Thank God for the Constitution & Bill of Rights, by the way.

 

[TJHall1]

You have a constitutional right to carry a firearm… Why would you need a a license tor something that is already a guaranteed God given right?

Why? To help stop some of these mass shootings, murders by mentally unstable psychos, and the like.

God given right?? Haha, that's gold.

Do you bitch to your lawmakers that you can't have grenades and bazookas? Because they're denying your God given right by not allowing you to have those!!!

 

[TJHall1]

License = Permission from the government...which I sure do not need to excersize my God given Rights, guaranteed by the Constitution. Thank God for the Constitution & Bill of Rights, by the way.

You're in favor of the mentally unstable and other psychos having weapons. Good to know.

Also in favor of them being able to walk around in public places and at events with as many live explosive devices as they can carry.

 

[GarnetPild]

You're in favor of the mentally unstable and other psychos having weapons. Good to know.

Also in favor of them being able to walk around in public places and at events with as many live explosive devices as they can carry.

No, I am not in favor of mentally unstable & other psychos having weapons. Not sure how we stop that, without violating the Constitution though, which you have no problem doing.

Also, there is already a legal process in place to take away someone's guns for mental health reasons. Of course, this involves due process...perhaps that process could be worked on a bit, I'd have no issue with that.

& Lol @ calling rounds of ammo "live explosive devices"

 

[TJHall1]

No, I am not in favor of mentally unstable & other psychos having weapons. Not sure how we stop that, without violating the Constitution though, which you have no problem doing.

Also, there is already a legal process in place to take away someone's guns for mental health reasons. Of course, this involves due process...perhaps that process could be worked on a bit, I'd have no issue with that.

& Lol @ calling rounds of ammo "live explosive devices"

Making sure it's safe for someone to have a deadly weapon isn't violating the constitution.

I'm not calling ammo explosive devices you moron. I'm saying if you're all for God given rights then anyone has the right to walk around with explosive devices if they want. Explosive devices, like grenades, homemade bombs. Whatever they want. It's their right. You agree?

 

[GarnetPild]

Making sure it's safe for someone to have a deadly weapon isn't violating the constitution.

I'm not calling ammo explosive devices you moron. I'm saying if you're all for God given rights then anyone has the right to walk around with explosive devices if they want. Explosive devices, like grenades, homemade bombs. Whatever they want. It's their right. You agree?

Requiring a license to excersize a Constitutional Right is absolutely violating the Constitution. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong.

As far as explosive devices being considered "arms"...Not sure I know enough to answer that, but I tend to say that no they are not. In any case, easy enough to make explosive devices with completely legal and easily attainable supplies. That being the case, we don't have a problem with crazies running around blowing shit up. Doubt it'd be different if people could buy grenades & whatnot.

 

[TJHall1]

Requiring a license to excersize a Constitutional Right is absolutely violating the Constitution. You can disagree, but you'd be wrong.

As far as explosive devices being considered "arms"...Not sure I know enough to answer that, but I tend to say that no they are not. In any case, easy enough to make explosive devices with completely legal and easily attainable supplies. That being the case, we don't have a problem with crazies running around blowing shit up. Doubt it'd be different if people could buy grenades & whatnot.

It's my God given right to defend myself. If I want to do it with grenades that's what I should be able to arm myself with. The forefathers didn't mention how I could arm myself. They didn't define arms. So I don't know how you are.

That's essentially what you're arguing.

 

[GarnetPild]

It's my God given right to defend myself. If I want to do it with grenades that's what I should be able to arm myself with.

That's essentially what you're arguing.

It's not what I am saying. It's the Constitution. Sorry you have such a problem with it.

 

[TJHall1]

It's not what I am saying. It's the Constitution. Sorry you have such a problem with it.

So then you agree I should be able to arm myself with anything I want. Because the constitution didn't say what I couldn't arm myself with. They didn't define arms. Otherwise my rights are being violated.

 

[TJHall1]

It's not what I am saying. It's the Constitution. Sorry you have such a problem with it.

And I don't have a problem with the constitution. That's something dumb you have made up.

 

[GarnetPild]

And I don't have a problem with the constitution. That's something dumb you have made up.

I sure did. I figured I'd do the same since you keep making up shit about my & other posters' opinions...like saying no one is talking about banning guns except me, and I'm in favor of crazies having guns, etc. Kind of obnoxious, isn't it?

 

[GarnetPild]

So then you agree I should be able to arm myself with anything I want. Because the constitution didn't say what I couldn't arm myself with. They didn't define arms. Otherwise my rights are being violated.

Meh...Any gun you want for sure. Not sure why you are so obsessed with explosives being arms. I suppose I'd default to what the Supreme Court considers "arms", if they've weighed in. Like I said, not sure I know enough about that to have a strong opinion. Always considered bearing arms to mean guns, but maybe it does mean more than that.

 

[TJHall1]

Meh...Any gun you want for sure. Not sure why you are so obsessed with explosives being arms. I suppose I'd default to what the Supreme Court considers "arms", if they've weighed in. Like I said, not sure I know enough about that to have a strong opinion. Always considered bearing arms to mean guns, but maybe it does mean more than that.

It wasnt defined by the forefathers so why would you put limits on it?? If you do you're violating people's rights. Anybody should be able to walk around with grenades, bombs, guns..whatever they want. According to your logic.

 

[TJHall1]

I sure did. I figured I'd do the same since you keep making up shit about my & other posters' opinions...like saying no one is talking about banning guns except me, and I'm in favor of crazies having guns, etc. Kind of obnoxious, isn't it?

Well literally no one else used the words ban guns except you. So there's that.

And you keep saying that requiring courses so people actually know how to use and take care of guns is a violation of rights, think red flag laws are also a violation so it's not a far fetched conclusion to say that you think anyone should be able to get a gun.

 

[GarnetPild]

It wasnt defined by the forefathers so why would you put limits on it?? If you do you're violating people's rights. Anybody should be able to walk around with grenades, bombs, guns..whatever they want. According to your logic.

Ok, you persuaded me. Not just guns, any weapon.

 

[TJHall1]

Ok, you persuaded me. Not just guns, any weapon.

Ok. So anybody should be able to purchase anything they want from a handgun to a rocket launcher so long as they don't have a felony conviction. Is that fair to say that's your opinion?

 

[GarnetPild]

Well literally no one else used the words ban guns except you. So there's that.

And you keep saying that requiring courses so people actually know how to use and take care of guns is a violation of rights, think red flag laws are also a violation so it's not a far fetched conclusion to say that you think anyone should be able to get a gun.

For God's sake, man. The fucking OP said he wanted to make them so hard to get, most people would give up before getting approved for one...but he didn't actually use the word ban

 

[TJHall1]

For God's sake, man. The fucking OP said he wanted to make them so hard to get, most people would give up before getting approved for one...but he didn't actually use the word ban

Correct.

 

[shiv]

I too am awake at 3am

 

[TJHall1]

For God's sake, man. The fucking OP said he wanted to make them so hard to get, most people would give up before getting approved for one...but he didn't actually use the word ban

How come I've never seen any posts on here from you talking about how the govt is violating your rights by denying you the ability to purchase fully automatic weapons?

 

[GarnetPild]

How come I've never seen any posts on here from you talking about how the govt is violating your rights by denying you the ability to purchase fully automatic weapons?

Because the subject hasn't come up. They aren't actually banned, but they have banned the manufacture and import of fully auromatic guns. So the ones left in circulation are insanely expensive. They also require a much more extensive background check and for law enforcement to have access to inspect your shit. I do not agree with any of this. Thanks for asking.

 

[TJHall1]

Because the subject hasn't come up. They aren't actually banned, but they have banned the manufacture and import of fully auromatic guns. So the ones left in circulation are insanely expensive. They also require a much more extensive background check and for law enforcement to have access to inspect your shit. I do not agree with any of this. Thanks for asking.

Its just good to know you're ok with certain people purchasing firearms who have no business being anywhere near them.

 

[GarnetPild]

Its just good to know you're ok with certain people purchasing firearms who have no business being anywhere near them.

You sure seem to love putting words in other people's mouths. Seems to be a constant thing with you around here. No, I am not ok with mentally unstable and dangerous people having guns. What does that have to do with fully automatic weapons anyway? You are all over the place in this thread.

 

[TJHall1]

You sure seem to love putting words in other people's mouths. Seems to be a constant thing with you around here. No, I am not ok with mentally unstable and dangerous people having guns. What does that have to do with fully automatic weapons anyway? You are all over the place in this thread.

Well in that case you should support red flag laws. It would help keep guns out of psychos and people with violent charges hands.

And all over the place? You can't even decide what arms are. First you act as tho it's simply guns, then flip to ok any weapons. You don't want any restrictions against 2A whatsoever yet you support restrictions for mentals and dangerous people. And you act as tho it's still 250 years ago and any decision about present day guns should be solely based on a few phrases that many people define in different ways from a group of guys who thought slavery was a right at the time.

 

[GarnetPild]

Well in that case you should support red flag laws. It would help keep guns out of psychos and people with violent charges hands.

And all over the place? You can't even decide what arms are. First you act as tho it's simply guns, then flip to ok any weapons. You don't want any restrictions against 2A whatsoever yet you support restrictions for mentals and dangerous people. And you act as tho it's still 250 years ago and any decision about present day guns should be solely based on a few phrases that many people define in different ways from a group of guys who thought slavery was a right at the time.

Do you ever make posts where you don't tell other people what their opinions are? Lol

I have always considered arms to mean firearms/guns. When you started talking explosives & shit for like the third time, I half jokingly went along with it because you seemed to not let it go, not matter what I said.

Yes, I do not support restrictions in the second ammendment. This is not the same as restricting certain people from having a gun, when that Right has been taken away through due process. Courts take away Rights all the time. Not the same as a blanket law restricting something.

Lmao at your last sentence describing a Constitutional ammendment at "a few phrases"...also lol at you acting as if we do not know what those phrases meant when they were written.

 

[TJHall1]

Do you ever make posts where you don't tell other people what their opinions are? Lol

I have always considered arms to mean firearms/guns. When you started talking explosives & shit for like the third time, I half jokingly went along with it because you seemed to not let it go, not matter what I said.

Yes, I do not support restrictions in the second ammendment. This is not the same as restricting certain people from having a gun, when that Right has been taken away through due process. Courts take away Rights all the time. Not the same as a blanket law restricting something.

Lmao at your last sentence describing a Constitutional ammendment at "a few phrases", and act as if we do not know what those phrases meant.

LMAO you clearly didnt know what they meant because you can't even define what they mean by arms.

Red flag laws would literally be courts restricting people from purchasing firearms, whether temporary or permanent.

 

[GarnetPild]

LMAO you clearly didnt know what they meant because you can't even define what they mean by arms.

Red flag laws would literally be courts restricting people from purchasing firearms, whether temporary or permanent.

Then red flag laws already exist, because courts can already do that. Maybe you can explain what you propose to be different than the current system, something more than just "red flag laws"...what do you mean by this? Also, I said many times I thought arms was referring to guns. You saying I didn't does not make it so.

You completely misrepresenting posts & opinions, and then mocking them as if that's really what is being said is tiring.

 

[TJHall1]

Then red flag laws already exist, because courts can already do that. Maybe you can explain what you propose to be different than the current system, something more than just "red flag laws"...what do you mean by this? Also, I said many times I thought arms was referring to guns. You saying I didn't does not make it so.

You completely misrepresenting posts & opinions, and then mocking them as if that's really what is being said is tiring.

"You thought." The fact that everything you're arguing is based on an amendment where you can't even specifically define what they mean by arms is extremely humorous. If you're going to base everything now based off what they wrote 250 years ago it might be important to be able to define that key component. "I thought it was referring to guns" haha.

Part of my point has been that there are already restrictions. You've argued against red flag laws and now admit that there are pretty much some already in place with regards to felons and such.

This is great

 

[GarnetPild]

"You thought." The fact that everything you're arguing is based on an amendment where you can't even specifically define what they mean by arms is extremely humorous. If you're going to base everything now based off what they wrote 250 years ago it might be important to be able to define that key component. "I thought it was referring to guns" haha.

Part of my point has been that there are already restrictions. You've argued against red flag laws and now admit that there are pretty much some already in place with regards to felons and such.

This is great

Ok, I could have chosen my words differently I suppose. Arms are guns. Period. Better? I never thought differently, but was puzzled by your bringing up of explosives.

My argument against red flag laws is being bolstered by the fact that we are 2 pages in, and you have yet to define what that even means. It must mean more than a judge having the ability to take your guns, because that already exists. Is it not more than that? I am against an undefined law that will take away someone's Constitutional Rights, without due process. I assume it will be without due process, because otherwise we are talking about something we already have. You obviously aren't talking about that, so tell me what you are talking about when you say red flag laws. I have asked, but you won't give me specifics. Or you can just twist my words some more, and laugh and avoid an actual conversation.

 

[TJHall1]

Ok, I could have chosen my words differently I suppose. Arms are guns. Period. Better? I never thought differently, but was puzzled by your bringing up of explosives.

My argument against red flag laws is being bolstered by the fact that we are 2 pages in, and you have yet to define what that even means. It must mean more than a judge having the ability to take your guns, because that already exists. Is it not more than that? I am against an undefined law that will take away someone's Constitutional Rights, without due process. I assume it will be without due process, because otherwise we are talking about something we already have. You obviously aren't talking about that, so tell me what you are talking about when you say red flag laws. I have asked, but you won't give me specifics. Or you can just twist my words some more, and laugh and avoid an actual conversation.

In the other thread I posted a story that happened last week about a guy who got charged with harassment of his ex girlfriend and impersonating an official. 2 days later he bought a gun and blasted her and her friend at a church. This man was clearly unstable, with those 2 charges, and flagging him as unable to purchase firearms, even temporarily, could have prevented that. This shit happens daily. Someone is arrested after beating their spouse up or someone they know in their life, or making threats to them, only to shoot them days later with a gun they've recently purchased.

I've been pretty clear about this sort of stuff being what I've talked about with flagging people between this and the other thread. Along with I said I think there needs to be a course or something before you're allowed to buy, you're just being a jackass and keep saying "I need more details/specifics." I'm not gonna put together a 2500 word essay so youre satisfied.

NOTHING I've suggested keeps a law abiding, mentally competent person from purchasing firearms.
You're basing everything off of the 2A but yet couldn't define arms. That's why I kept bringing up things like explosives and rocket launchers. I'm pretty sure the well regulated militia back then had more than just muskets and their other simple firearms when they fought, so I'm wondering when you speak of 2A now you only include firearms and not grenades and rocket launchers. Doesnt make any sense if you're basing it off what they said 250 years ago.

 

[AmericanViking]

So many replies are disgusting...showing their ignorance of the Second, though. My favorite is when they don't understand the "well regulated militia" part, & think guns are basically for the National Guard.

I laugh at the well regulated as well. Then again when they claim I’m making up what well regulated meant back then

 

[AmericanViking]

I just went to the range with a couple buddies last night. We were talking about restrictions and age was being discussed. They were for upping age to 21. I was for none of that. It's all infringing on our rights.

My son is still getting his first rifle at 15 or 16

 

[AmericanViking]

Less than a grand without the drum

https://palmettostatearmory.com/armscor-vr80-tactical-12-gauge-shotgun-vr80.html

All I need is the drum.

 

[AmericanViking]

Why? To help stop some of these mass shootings, murders by mentally unstable psychos, and the like.

God given right?? Haha, that's gold.

Do you bitch to your lawmakers that you can't have grenades and bazookas? Because they're denying your God given right by not allowing you to have those!!!

 

[AmericanViking]

LMAO you clearly didnt know what they meant because you can't even define what they mean by arms.

Red flag laws would literally be courts restricting people from purchasing firearms, whether temporary or permanent.

Definition of arms in the lane 1700’s

Black's Law Dictionary defines the word arms as "anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands as a weapon."