America's #1 Online Cigar Auction
first, best, biggest!

SPEY ...

ITS
CALLED
K.A.R.M.A.

AND A WELL FUNDED
P.P.L. AND A P.L.L.... $750 K....best money ever speNT

OOOOPPPPSSSSS....
POOR RATS AND AGENTS.....

OH WELL..PART OF tHe eqUAtioN

Not to somebody already on a historical pay roll ...
By the common FBI...

There
Are maNY levels above those douche bags...

These bodies don't like exposure...
Hence start with the first one...till it's done...
Unless...he has connections...

First thing, requiring a permit to exercise a Constitutional right is an infringement on that right. Would you be OK with requiring a permit to exercise your 1st Amendment right, or how about the 4th, 6th, 13th, 19th or 24th? How about requiring a government issued permit to vote? I'm not talking about a photo ID, but requiring that you obtain the government's permission before you are permitted to vote, as well as a back ground check to make sure you are mentally competent. I mean it's just a common sense approach to make sure only qualified, mentally competent Citizens vote, right? Why would any rational person be against that? No one would be trying to take away your right to vote, we would just be putting some common sense restrictions on that right.

David

Today you can buy a gun without a back ground check. And people can buy para-military weapons that they have no reason to own. No, "because its cool" and "self defense" aren't reasons.

What happen to Darth Tittmus anyway?

So if you hold black colored plastic while you talk it’s now para-military assault speech. Got it!

Tell me how you buy a gun without a background check.

No, black plastic is not dangerous. Besides I though they moved to Earth Brown...


Go to a gun show and buy from a private seller.

So, you get the right to determine which Constitutional rights can be infringed upon, depending on your perceived danger of that right. Got it. BTW, the last time I checked, neither driving nor fishing where Constitutionally protected rights.

How about we talk about the "danger to the public" of legally owned firearms. In 2013, then President Obama commissioned the CDC to do a study on gun violence. His hope was that he could declare gun violence a health epidemic, and sidestep our Constitution. Instead, the study found that law abiding gun owners use their legally owned firearms between 500,000 to 3,000,000 times EACH year to defend life and property from criminal attack. The study also found that the mere presence of the firearm was many times all that was required to stop the attack, and that shots where not fired. It was also discovered that those who used a firearm for self defense where far less likely to be injuired, or their injuries where far less severe then those who used other forms of self defense.

Since the CDC study found that legally owned firearms prevent up to 3,000,000 murders, rapes, muggings, assaults, robberies, etc. EACH YEAR, I contend that they are more of a benefit to public safety, then a danger.

David

what are the factors for requiring a permit to assemble?
and placing geographical limits on where anti GW Bush protesters could protest?

your rights end where mine begin...

some good stuff coming from all sides on this. This is the stuff I really enjoy reading here.
makes my brain exercise.

I'm all for letting only sane people vote. Trump would still be a reality TV star and Hillary would be president.

Drafter the voice of sanity?

You consider the unhinged leftists who scream at the sky and sob under their beds as "sane"?

David

His argument is quite logical.

Your stance is that nothing should infringe on the constitutional right to bear arms.

You cannot claim that stance if you are not also willing to allow your neighbor to have a nuke, or a crate of weaponized anthrax or any other item which would fit under "arms". Otherwise you are infringing upon their right.

If your argument instead had been "hey brewha, I respect that you drew your line for what you thought was reasonable oversight of the 2nd amendment over here, but I personally want to draw my line for reasonable oversight of the 2nd amendment over here instead"

But you didn't. So his question is very valid.

(before anyone starts crying and saying I hate america, I would like to remind you that I firmly stand at "no infringement on 2nd amendment rights". I would be happy and giddy to find out that all your neighbors had nukes and crates of weaponized anthrax)

I understand where you are coming from, but here's my point. If you can outlaw an AR-15, due to it's rate of fire, power, or muzzle velocity, then you can outlaw ALL semi-auto rifles and handguns using the same criteria. I've already showed you that the typical .308 Hunting Rifle is 3 times more powerful then an AR, and fires at the exact same rate, so the .308 and virtually all semi-auto hunting rifles will also have to go. Since semi-auto handguns (like your wife's .380) fire at the same rate as an AR, they will have to go too.

Now we are down to revolvers, pump guns, lever actions, bolt actions and single shots. Jerry Miculek can fire 8 rounds on target from a revolver in under 1 second. That's 480 rounds per minute. He can also fire 6 rounds from his revolver, RELOAD, and fire an additional 6 rounds in 2.99 seconds. That's 240 rounds per minute including reload time. So, if the AR is to be banned due to rate of fire, we must also ban revolvers.

Now we are down to pump guns, lever actions, bolt actions and single shots. Opps, I've seen a guy fire 10 rounds from a lever action rifle in 1.73 seconds (347 RPM), and I've seen Jerry put 8 rounds on 8 separate targets out of a pump shotgun in under 2 seconds (240 RPM). Guess they also have to go. Then there's that video of a guy and his loader hitting 24 clay pigeons in under 24 seconds while manually loading a round after each shot. Wow, that was 60 RPM and he had to manually have each round loaded after each shot. I guess single shots are out too.

My point is, if you want to ban "black rifles" because they look scary, or they frighten you, I understand. But if your criteria for banning them is their rate of fire, muzzle energy or muzzle velocity, you can then use the exact same criteria to ban virtually ALL firearms. This is the danger. If a politician or State can ban ARs and such due to rate of fire or power, they can then use the exact same criteria to eventually ban ALL firearms.

David

Point taken. So I personally draw the line at neclear, biological and chemical weapons, as I believe that even militaries shouldn't use or possess them. But if a law abiding citizen can afford a main battle tank, or a F35 fighter jet, they should be able to legally own them.

David

So no restrictions are reasonable because of what might happen next?

Beer leads to Heroin?




Now that I think of it the have already banned/restricted machine guns - so they are going to come for your BB gun soon...