(05-26-2016 02:52 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 01:35 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 01:18 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 01:14 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Well, he's definitely got my vote over Hillary or Bernie.

I hope that you stand by this statement even after the **** show that is he is going to put on over the next 6 months.

oh like you did after the last 6 months?

Still here.

but not standing by your statements... you were just a mere troll.

(05-26-2016 02:59 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:52 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 01:35 PM)UTSAMarineVet09 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 01:18 PM)firmbizzle Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 01:14 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Well, he's definitely got my vote over Hillary or Bernie.

I hope that you stand by this statement even after the **** show that is he is going to put on over the next 6 months.

oh like you did after the last 6 months?

Still here.

but not standing by your statements... you were just a mere troll.

I stand by all of them. You guys followed me. #stillwinning

(05-26-2016 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nope...still don't see any taking away the right to bear arms. Instead, just proposals for more reasonable regulations that most everyone supports in this country.

Making it such a hassle for legal gun owners that they decide to give them up is de facto taking away the right.

And many of the proposals that seem so reasonable to non gun owners will in fact have draconian impacts on gun ownership through raising the hassle factor.

(05-26-2016 03:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nope...still don't see any taking away the right to bear arms. Instead, just proposals for more reasonable regulations that most everyone supports in this country.

Making it such a hassle for legal gun owners that they decide to give them up is de facto taking away the right.
And many of the proposals that seem so reasonable to non gun owners will in fact have draconian impacts on gun ownership through raising the hassle factor.

Spare the emoticon. "We're not going to take away your gun rights, we're just going to increase the hassle factor until you give up," is in fact taking away gun rights. Anyone who claims otherwise is seriously devoid of honesty or integrity or both.

(05-26-2016 02:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Maybe I'm not familiar with the definition of "gutting"?

"Gutting" IMO, would be anything that weakens a citizens rights or prohibits their ability to legally express said right.

"Shall not be infringed"

Quote:in·fringe
inˈfrinj/Submit
verb
past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed
- actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
- act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; More

(05-26-2016 02:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nope...still don't see any banning of weapons or taking away the right to bear arms. Instead, just proposals for more reasonable regulations that most everyone supports in this country.

Re-instating the assault weapon ban would... Care to take a guess??? Ban some weapons.

Quote:For the first time in more than 20 years, support for a ban on assault weapons dipped below 50 percent.
Just 45 percent of those polled in an ABC News/Washington Post survey out Wednesday, support a ban — the lowest number in more than two decades. Fifty-three percent are opposed to such a ban, the largest plurality yet.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/po...z49nHDnQqu
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

There's one proposal that not 'most everyone' supports.

(05-26-2016 02:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I will agree that going after the gun makers for crimes with guns is a bridge too far. But I wouldn't worry, that's going nowhere. In addition, it is not changing any second amendment rights.

This is just a hair-brained idea. It's DOA and probably meant to do nothing but stir up the most anti-gun members of her base.

IF, if it did become a reality it would certainly restrict second amendment rights. Manufacturers would be put out of business overnight. Prices of firearms would skyrocket. The same logic could be made for making ammunition manufacturers responsible as well. It would amount to legislating away a right since very few people would be able to afford the right to own a firearm.

(05-26-2016 03:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nope...still don't see any taking away the right to bear arms. Instead, just proposals for more reasonable regulations that most everyone supports in this country.

Making it such a hassle for legal gun owners that they decide to give them up is de facto taking away the right.
And many of the proposals that seem so reasonable to non gun owners will in fact have draconian impacts on gun ownership through raising the hassle factor.

Spare the emoticon. "We're not going to take away your gun rights, we're just going to increase the hassle factor until you give up," is in fact taking away gun rights. Anyone who claims otherwise is seriously devoid of honesty or integrity or both.

The emoticon is perfection. The NRA rhetoric you're espousing is pathetic.

(05-26-2016 03:08 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Maybe I'm not familiar with the definition of "gutting"?

"Gutting" IMO, would be anything that weakens a citizens rights or prohibits their ability to legally express said right.

"Shall not be infringed"

Quote:in·fringe
inˈfrinj/Submit
verb
past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed
- actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
- act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; More

(05-26-2016 02:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nope...still don't see any banning of weapons or taking away the right to bear arms. Instead, just proposals for more reasonable regulations that most everyone supports in this country.

Re-instating the assault weapon ban would... Care to take a guess??? Ban some weapons.

Quote:For the first time in more than 20 years, support for a ban on assault weapons dipped below 50 percent.
Just 45 percent of those polled in an ABC News/Washington Post survey out Wednesday, support a ban — the lowest number in more than two decades. Fifty-three percent are opposed to such a ban, the largest plurality yet.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/po...z49nHDnQqu
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

There's one proposal that not 'most everyone' supports.

(05-26-2016 02:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I will agree that going after the gun makers for crimes with guns is a bridge too far. But I wouldn't worry, that's going nowhere. In addition, it is not changing any second amendment rights.

This is just a hair-brained idea. It's DOA and probably meant to do nothing but stir up the most anti-gun members of her base.

IF, if it did become a reality it would certainly restrict second amendment rights. Manufacturers would be put out of business overnight. Prices of firearms would skyrocket. The same logic could be made for making ammunition manufacturers responsible as well. It would amount to legislating away a right since very few people would be able to afford the right to own a firearm.

I noticed that you didn't cite any definitions of a well regulated militia. Obviously just an oversight.

(05-26-2016 03:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nope...still don't see any taking away the right to bear arms. Instead, just proposals for more reasonable regulations that most everyone supports in this country.

Making it such a hassle for legal gun owners that they decide to give them up is de facto taking away the right.
And many of the proposals that seem so reasonable to non gun owners will in fact have draconian impacts on gun ownership through raising the hassle factor.

Spare the emoticon. "We're not going to take away your gun rights, we're just going to increase the hassle factor until you give up," is in fact taking away gun rights. Anyone who claims otherwise is seriously devoid of honesty or integrity or both.

The emoticon is perfection. The NRA rhetoric you're espousing is pathetic.

So is the one below.

(05-26-2016 03:21 PM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:18 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  Making it such a hassle for legal gun owners that they decide to give them up is de facto taking away the right.
And many of the proposals that seem so reasonable to non gun owners will in fact have draconian impacts on gun ownership through raising the hassle factor.

Spare the emoticon. "We're not going to take away your gun rights, we're just going to increase the hassle factor until you give up," is in fact taking away gun rights. Anyone who claims otherwise is seriously devoid of honesty or integrity or both.

The emoticon is perfection. The NRA rhetoric you're espousing is pathetic.

So is the one below.

I agree. I think Owl is older than that though. And you should have found a tanker with "NRA" on the side. Good effort though.

(05-26-2016 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:08 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Maybe I'm not familiar with the definition of "gutting"?

"Gutting" IMO, would be anything that weakens a citizens rights or prohibits their ability to legally express said right.

"Shall not be infringed"

Quote:in·fringe
inˈfrinj/Submit
verb
past tense: infringed; past participle: infringed
- actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.).
"making an unauthorized copy would infringe copyright"
synonyms: contravene, violate, transgress, break, breach; More
- act so as to limit or undermine (something); encroach on.
"his legal rights were being infringed"
synonyms: restrict, limit, curb, check, encroach on; More

(05-26-2016 02:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nope...still don't see any banning of weapons or taking away the right to bear arms. Instead, just proposals for more reasonable regulations that most everyone supports in this country.

Re-instating the assault weapon ban would... Care to take a guess??? Ban some weapons.

Quote:For the first time in more than 20 years, support for a ban on assault weapons dipped below 50 percent.
Just 45 percent of those polled in an ABC News/Washington Post survey out Wednesday, support a ban — the lowest number in more than two decades. Fifty-three percent are opposed to such a ban, the largest plurality yet.
Read more: http://www.politico.com/story/2015/12/po...z49nHDnQqu
Follow us: @politico on Twitter | Politico on Facebook

There's one proposal that not 'most everyone' supports.

(05-26-2016 02:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I will agree that going after the gun makers for crimes with guns is a bridge too far. But I wouldn't worry, that's going nowhere. In addition, it is not changing any second amendment rights.

This is just a hair-brained idea. It's DOA and probably meant to do nothing but stir up the most anti-gun members of her base.

IF, if it did become a reality it would certainly restrict second amendment rights. Manufacturers would be put out of business overnight. Prices of firearms would skyrocket. The same logic could be made for making ammunition manufacturers responsible as well. It would amount to legislating away a right since very few people would be able to afford the right to own a firearm.

I noticed that you didn't cite any definitions of a well regulated militia. Obviously just an oversight.

Not an oversight at all.

Quote:The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Quote:It was not until 2008 that the Supreme Court definitively came down on the side of an “individual rights” theory.1 Relying on new scholarship regarding the origins of the Amendment, the Court in District of Columbia v. Heller2 confirmed what had been a growing consensus of legal scholars – that the rights of the Second Amendment adhered to individuals. The Court reached this conclusion after a textual analysis of the Amendment,3 an examination of the historical use of prefatory phrases in statutes, and a detailed exploration of the 18th century meaning of phrases found in the Amendment. Although accepting that the historical and contemporaneous use of the phrase “keep and bear Arms” often arose in connection with military activities, the Court noted that its use was not limited to those contexts.4 Further, the Court found that the phrase “well regulated Militia” referred not to formally organized state or federal militias, but to the pool of “able-bodied men” who were available for conscription.5 Finally, the Court reviewed contemporaneous state constitutions, post-enactment commentary, and subsequent case law to conclude that the purpose of the right to keep and bear arms extended beyond the context of militia service to include self-defense.

https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/...#amdt2_hd2

(05-26-2016 03:04 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nope...still don't see any taking away the right to bear arms. Instead, just proposals for more reasonable regulations that most everyone supports in this country.

Making it such a hassle for legal gun owners that they decide to give them up is de facto taking away the right.
And many of the proposals that seem so reasonable to non gun owners will in fact have draconian impacts on gun ownership through raising the hassle factor.

Spare the emoticon. "We're not going to take away your gun rights, we're just going to increase the hassle factor until you give up," is in fact taking away gun rights. Anyone who claims otherwise is seriously devoid of honesty or integrity or both.

This is the same approach as "You can build a coal fired energy plant, but we're going to bankrupt you in the process".

And the idea that this wench wants to open the trial loyyas up to suing the manufacturers (cause, you know the thug perps don't have the deep pockets) is right out of the Tobacco shakedown.

Next up will be vehicles, especially the large SUV's and heavy pick-ups that will squash their Priuses and Fiats in an accident. Cars kill a lot more people than guns, it's only "common sense regulation", right?

(not directed at you Owl, or anyone in particular, jus' spitballin here)

(05-26-2016 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I noticed that you didn't cite any definitions of a well regulated militia. Obviously just an oversight.

Probably not an oversight. Clearly irrelevant.

(05-26-2016 03:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I noticed that you didn't cite any definitions of a well regulated militia. Obviously just an oversight.

Probably not an oversight. Clearly irrelevant.

Of course it's irrelevant. ~ NRA

(05-26-2016 03:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I noticed that you didn't cite any definitions of a well regulated militia. Obviously just an oversight.

Probably not an oversight. Clearly irrelevant.

Of course it's irrelevant. ~ NRA

No, it's irrelevant because the plain meaning of the English words say that it is irrelevant.

(05-26-2016 03:00 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:58 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 02:52 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  Nope...still don't see any taking away the right to bear arms. Instead, just proposals for more reasonable regulations that most everyone supports in this country.

Making it such a hassle for legal gun owners that they decide to give them up is de facto taking away the right.

And many of the proposals that seem so reasonable to non gun owners will in fact have draconian impacts on gun ownership through raising the hassle factor.

The NRA protects bow season as well as gun season.

(05-26-2016 03:48 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:46 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:37 PM)Owl 69/70/75 Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 03:20 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  I noticed that you didn't cite any definitions of a well regulated militia. Obviously just an oversight.

Probably not an oversight. Clearly irrelevant.

Of course it's irrelevant. ~ NRA

No, it's irrelevant because the plain meaning of the English words say that it is irrelevant.

Right. Throughout history, this has never been debated and always accepted as not having anything at all to do with people having guns...for any reason they see fit..and all types of them as well! ~ NRA

Are you still arguing Red? Supreme court says you're wrong. Get over it.

(05-26-2016 04:56 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Are you still arguing Red? Supreme court says you're wrong. Get over it.

You don't have the first clue what I'm even "arguing."

(05-26-2016 05:08 PM)Redwingtom Wrote:  

(05-26-2016 04:56 PM)200yrs2late Wrote:  Are you still arguing Red? Supreme court says you're wrong. Get over it.

You don't have the first clue what I'm even "arguing."

Neither do you. Every time you are proven wrong you stammer on to some other bs talking point.

Neither of you want to MAGA.