(06-17-2022 01:36 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 05:30 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 12:01 AM)scorpius Wrote:  It's one amendment. Not only that, it's one sentence. If both parts of it were such a "big" difference as you put it, they'd make two amendments out of it, or at the VERY LEAST make it two sentences. This is what I mean about common sense taking a backseat to plain stupidity.

You definitely don't let common sense anywhere near your stupidity.

Common sense says the 2nd amendment guarantees our right to a national defense. And the 14th amendment is what determines the extent we are allowed to bear arms personally.

Common sense does not, as Section 8 of the Constitution already states that Congress shall provide for the common defence. There is no reason to create an amendment to restate something already in the Constitution. Therefore, common sense is that the amendment cannot by about national defense.

Scorp, what do you know about common sense? From perusing your gibberish, I see little evidence you have even a passing understanding of common sense.

You may read the words fine but your interpretations leave a lot to be desired.

(06-17-2022 01:36 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 05:30 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 12:01 AM)scorpius Wrote:  It's one amendment. Not only that, it's one sentence. If both parts of it were such a "big" difference as you put it, they'd make two amendments out of it, or at the VERY LEAST make it two sentences. This is what I mean about common sense taking a backseat to plain stupidity.

You definitely don't let common sense anywhere near your stupidity.

Common sense says the 2nd amendment guarantees our right to a national defense. And the 14th amendment is what determines the extent we are allowed to bear arms personally.

Nope. Defense of the nation is one of the few specific powers granted to the Federal government in the body of the constitution (Article 1, Section 8)---but congrats on twisting the second amendment words into some crazy meaning. The first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights because they represent specifically identified and protected rights of freedom FOR THE INDIVIDUAL from the government. They are personal individual rights.

If the second amendment intent by the founding fathers was only national defense---and not about personal ownership of fire arms---then they would have had no reason what so ever to even mention barring the federal government from infringing on the right of the citizens to bear arms (the right to raise an army is already in the body of the constitution). If the concern was the ability to raise a militia---it would simply establish the right of the state or local government to create a militia. The state or local government could be the owner of the weapons (they would be kept in an armory)---no need to guarantee or even mention an individual right to own fire arms if the intent was simply to be sure Americans could have a militia. Furthermore---such a general local government provision would have no place in the Bill of Rights---as these amendments deal only with the protection of individual rights from the federal government.

This is not a debate anywhere other than among the nutty misinformed left. One need only read the writings in the Federalist papers to know the constitutional authors fully intended for Americans to have a constitutionally protected right to personal ownership of fire arms.

I applaud you for trying to educate him but the reality is that trying to straighten out Scorp's misunderstandings is like trying to teach Thermodynamics to a kindergarden student.

He has zero understanding of the way government is structured or the history and intent of documents like the Constitution and what it means. I suspect what he believes is just regurgitated talking points from other uneducated morons.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

(06-17-2022 06:04 PM)MileHighBronco Wrote:  I applaud you for trying to educate him but the reality is that trying to straighten out Scorp's misunderstandings is like trying to teach Thermodynamics to a kindergarden student.

He has zero understanding of the way government is structured or the history and intent of documents like the Constitution and what it means. I suspect what he believes is just regurgitated talking points from other uneducated morons.

A mind is a terrible thing to waste.

^^^ We have a winner ^^^.

(06-17-2022 05:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 01:36 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 05:30 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 12:01 AM)scorpius Wrote:  It's one amendment. Not only that, it's one sentence. If both parts of it were such a "big" difference as you put it, they'd make two amendments out of it, or at the VERY LEAST make it two sentences. This is what I mean about common sense taking a backseat to plain stupidity.

You definitely don't let common sense anywhere near your stupidity.

Common sense says the 2nd amendment guarantees our right to a national defense. And the 14th amendment is what determines the extent we are allowed to bear arms personally.

Nope. Defense of the nation is one of the few specific powers granted to the Federal government in the body of the constitution (Article 1, Section 8)---but congrats on twisting the second amendment words into some crazy meaning. The first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights because they represent specifically identified and protected rights of freedom FOR THE INDIVIDUAL from the government. They are personal individual rights.

If the second amendment intent by the founding fathers was only national defense---and not about personal ownership of fire arms---then they would have had no reason what so ever to even mention barring the federal government from infringing on the right of the citizens to bear arms (the right to raise an army is already in the body of the constitution). If the concern was the ability to raise a militia---it would simply establish the right of the state or local government to create a militia. The state or local government could be the owner of the weapons (they would be kept in an armory)---no need to guarantee or even mention an individual right to own fire arms if the intent was simply to be sure Americans could have a militia. Furthermore---such a general local government provision would have no place in the Bill of Rights---as these amendments deal only with the protection of individual rights from the federal government.

This is not a debate anywhere other than among the nutty misinformed left. One need only read the writings in the Federalist papers to know the constitutional authors fully intended for Americans to have a constitutionally protected right to personal ownership of fire arms.

The moment you had to quote the Federalist Papers instead of the Constitution itself to make your point is the moment you lost all credibility. The Federalist Papers is not the Constitution. It's just opinion. That's like quoting Fox News to interpret the Constitution. Only the Supreme Court has the ability to interpret the Constitution. No one else. Not even the original founders opinions are part of the Constitution because they all varied and thus their "compromise" was the actual text itself and the faith they had in future Supreme Courts to interpret it.

But besides that, "common defense" is not national defense in specific. It means the common defense of society in general. In other words, it served the purpose of a very primitive version of what later became embodied in the 14th amendment. Sure you can argue national defense is a part of "common defense" only IF Congress decided it was necessary for common defense. Thus the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to make sure as part of "common defense" (or any other reason) that Congress didn't outlaw militias. It forced Congress to "well regulate" them for the purpose of.. (and I quote literally).. "the security of a free state". You can't hide from the actual text. It says what it says.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself. How in the world did we survive in a world where there was no 14th amendment? It was because of the very clause you mentioned above and others. But the moment the 14th amendment was ratified, it made all the other stuff redundant and largely absolete. If this isn't the case, then ask yourself, if the 2nd amendment means we have the true "uninfringed" right to bear arms, then why are AK47's outlawed and tactical nukes for that matter? Or Gatlin guns? All you have to do is look at the 14th amendment for the answer. DUH!!

(06-17-2022 01:36 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 05:30 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 12:01 AM)scorpius Wrote:  It's one amendment. Not only that, it's one sentence. If both parts of it were such a "big" difference as you put it, they'd make two amendments out of it, or at the VERY LEAST make it two sentences. This is what I mean about common sense taking a backseat to plain stupidity.

You definitely don't let common sense anywhere near your stupidity.

Common sense says the 2nd amendment guarantees our right to a national defense. And the 14th amendment is what determines the extent we are allowed to bear arms personally.

Go back to talking about video games.

(06-17-2022 07:59 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 05:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 01:36 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 05:30 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 12:01 AM)scorpius Wrote:  It's one amendment. Not only that, it's one sentence. If both parts of it were such a "big" difference as you put it, they'd make two amendments out of it, or at the VERY LEAST make it two sentences. This is what I mean about common sense taking a backseat to plain stupidity.

You definitely don't let common sense anywhere near your stupidity.

Common sense says the 2nd amendment guarantees our right to a national defense. And the 14th amendment is what determines the extent we are allowed to bear arms personally.

Nope. Defense of the nation is one of the few specific powers granted to the Federal government in the body of the constitution (Article 1, Section 8)---but congrats on twisting the second amendment words into some crazy meaning. The first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights because they represent specifically identified and protected rights of freedom FOR THE INDIVIDUAL from the government. They are personal individual rights.

If the second amendment intent by the founding fathers was only national defense---and not about personal ownership of fire arms---then they would have had no reason what so ever to even mention barring the federal government from infringing on the right of the citizens to bear arms (the right to raise an army is already in the body of the constitution). If the concern was the ability to raise a militia---it would simply establish the right of the state or local government to create a militia. The state or local government could be the owner of the weapons (they would be kept in an armory)---no need to guarantee or even mention an individual right to own fire arms if the intent was simply to be sure Americans could have a militia. Furthermore---such a general local government provision would have no place in the Bill of Rights---as these amendments deal only with the protection of individual rights from the federal government.

This is not a debate anywhere other than among the nutty misinformed left. One need only read the writings in the Federalist papers to know the constitutional authors fully intended for Americans to have a constitutionally protected right to personal ownership of fire arms.

The moment you had to quote the Federalist Papers instead of the Constitution itself to make your point is the moment you lost all credibility. The Federalist Papers is not the Constitution. It's just opinion. That's like quoting Fox News to interpret the Constitution. Only the Supreme Court has the ability to interpret the Constitution. No one else. Not even the original founders opinions are part of the Constitution because they all varied and thus their "compromise" was the actual text itself and the faith they had in future Supreme Courts to interpret it.

But besides that, "common defense" is not national defense in specific. It means the common defense of society in general. In other words, it served the purpose of a very primitive version of what later became embodied in the 14th amendment. Sure you can argue national defense is a part of "common defense" only IF Congress decided it was necessary for common defense. Thus the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to make sure as part of "common defense" (or any other reason) that Congress didn't outlaw militias. It forced Congress to "well regulate" them for the purpose of.. (and I quote literally).. "the security of a free state". You can't hide from the actual text. It says what it says.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself. How in the world did we survive in a world where there was no 14th amendment? It was because of the very clause you mentioned above and others. But the moment the 14th amendment was ratified, it made all the other stuff redundant and largely absolete. If this isn't the case, then ask yourself, if the 2nd amendment means we have the true "uninfringed" right to bear arms, then why are AK47's outlawed and tactical nukes for that matter? Or Gatlin guns? All you have to do is look at the 14th amendment for the answer. DUH!!

I don’t believe you.

(06-17-2022 05:45 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Who was persuaded by this rude behavior?

Speaking just for myself, I have as-yet unformed views on the question of gun control. My operating assumption is that the left cannot ever be trusted. Bad faith is at their core, and there is no promise they will not break and no line they will not cross in order to achieve national gun confiscation.

So while I was initially in favor of the concept of red-flag legislation, it seemed to make facial sense to me, the coolheaded arguments depicting how easily those can and will be abused have pretty well changed my mind. That is how political debate is supposed to work.

Until I see this crap. How is this much different than the “Reeeeeeeeee” approach from the left that we correctly sneer at on this forum, other than that this time you agree with it? If the heckler’s veto is the best that the gun lobby has, that tells me that my views on the subject may warrant yet another rethinking.

The right has the far better arguments on most (but not all) policy issues. Acting like noisy losers is not a good or effective way to present those better arguments.

(06-18-2022 06:04 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 05:45 PM)CrimsonPhantom Wrote:  

Who was persuaded by this rude behavior?

Speaking just for myself, I have as-yet unformed views on the question of gun control. My operating assumption is that the left cannot ever be trusted. Bad faith is at their core, and there is no promise they will not break and no line they will not cross in order to achieve national gun confiscation.

So while I was initially in favor of the concept of red-flag legislation, it seemed to make facial sense to me, the coolheaded arguments depicting how easily those can and will be abused have pretty well changed my mind. That is how political debate is supposed to work.

Until I see this crap. How is this much different than the “Reeeeeeeeee” approach from the left that we correctly sneer at on this forum, other than that this time you agree with it? If the heckler’s veto is the best that the gun lobby has, that tells me that my views on the subject may warrant yet another rethinking.

The right has the far better arguments on most (but not all) policy issues. Acting like noisy losers is not a good or effective way to present those better arguments.

You were in good shape until you had to handle the boos.

Cornyn lives in a bubble in DC. He is an enabler of the stupid things democrats do. When people let him know, in the most non-violent way, that he is not representing them they way they expect, you get butthurt?

You are so chilled by booing that you are ok with someone who is supposed to be representing the people and protecting their rights getting in bed with Schumer. At a time when inflation is out of control, there's a baby formula shortage, gas prices spiking, and illegals flooding Cornyns state, he's working with democrats on gun control.

What do you expect them to do, happy clap him off the stage?

Hence, Trump.

(06-18-2022 07:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You were in good shape until you had to handle the boos.

Cornyn lives in a bubble in DC. He is an enabler of the stupid things democrats do. When people let him know, in the most non-violent way, that he is not representing them they way they expect, you get butthurt?

You are so chilled by booing that you are ok with someone who is supposed to be representing the people and protecting their rights getting in bed with Schumer. At a time when inflation is out of control, there's a baby formula shortage, gas prices spiking, and illegals flooding Cornyns state, he's working with democrats on gun control.

What do you expect them to do, happy clap him off the stage?

Hence, Trump.

I actually 100% agree with you on this UMsU. +3

You are correct on literally every point:

1. I am not a senator. John Cornyn is. He is supposed to know better, and deserves to be called out for serving as an enabler to unreliable, America-hating progressives.

2. Yes, I get butthurt when I see issues of this level of importance devolve into nursery-school tantrums. We're supposed to be better. It saddens me that we are not.

3. Sen. Shumer is among the worst of the worst. If at anytime we find ourselves aligned with him it ought to be a "red flag" (to coin a term) that we need to reconsider our position. But, again, I am not a senator. And I am willing to take into account that others, not named Shumer, seem to think that there is merit to what is being proposed.

4. I am not sure why you feel the need to throw inflation, baby formula, etc. into this discussion, but you are on a roll so I will defer.

5. No. I do not expect them to clap him off the stage. But is shouting him down the only alternative? Perhaps in Texas that is so.

Bottom line, I agree: This clip is how we now politically interact in America. Hence Trump. (And, at least in my view, we as a nation are worse off as a consequence.)

(06-18-2022 08:04 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 07:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You were in good shape until you had to handle the boos.

Cornyn lives in a bubble in DC. He is an enabler of the stupid things democrats do. When people let him know, in the most non-violent way, that he is not representing them they way they expect, you get butthurt?

You are so chilled by booing that you are ok with someone who is supposed to be representing the people and protecting their rights getting in bed with Schumer. At a time when inflation is out of control, there's a baby formula shortage, gas prices spiking, and illegals flooding Cornyns state, he's working with democrats on gun control.

What do you expect them to do, happy clap him off the stage?

Hence, Trump.

I actually 100% agree with you on this UMsU. +3

You are correct on literally every point:

1. I am not a senator. John Cornyn is. He is supposed to know better, and deserves to be called out for serving as an enabler to unreliable, America-hating progressives.

2. Yes, I get butthurt when I see issues of this level of importance devolve into nursery-school tantrums. We're supposed to be better. It saddens me that we are not.

3. Sen. Shumer is among the worst of the worst. If at anytime we find ourselves aligned with him it ought to be a "red flag" (to coin a term) that we need to reconsider our position. But, again, I am not a senator. And I am willing to take into account that others, not named Shumer, seem to think that there is merit to what is being proposed.

4. I am not sure why you feel the need to throw inflation, baby formula, etc. into this discussion, but you are on a roll so I will defer.

5. No. I do not expect them to clap him off the stage. But is shouting him down the only alternative? Perhaps in Texas that is so.

Bottom line, I agree: This clip is how we now politically interact in America. Hence Trump. (And, at least in my view, we as a nation are worse off as a consequence.)

Because, right now, the most pressing issues affecting this country are inflation, gas prices, grocery prices, inflation, and illegal immigrants. Its not faux rage gun control. Why in the f*ck is he spending time on this?

Answer: Because he is an elitist. The same as Schumer, with an R next to his name.

Getting booed off the stage is how elites "get the message." He lives in a bubble in DC. For some reason, he believes controlling gun access to americans is whats important when americans are struggling with food prices, high gas prices, and spending a lot of time searching for baby formula.

Hence Trump.

(06-17-2022 07:59 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 05:51 PM)Attackcoog Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 01:36 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 05:30 AM)appst89 Wrote:  

(06-17-2022 12:01 AM)scorpius Wrote:  It's one amendment. Not only that, it's one sentence. If both parts of it were such a "big" difference as you put it, they'd make two amendments out of it, or at the VERY LEAST make it two sentences. This is what I mean about common sense taking a backseat to plain stupidity.

You definitely don't let common sense anywhere near your stupidity.

Common sense says the 2nd amendment guarantees our right to a national defense. And the 14th amendment is what determines the extent we are allowed to bear arms personally.

Nope. Defense of the nation is one of the few specific powers granted to the Federal government in the body of the constitution (Article 1, Section 8)---but congrats on twisting the second amendment words into some crazy meaning. The first 10 amendments are called the Bill of Rights because they represent specifically identified and protected rights of freedom FOR THE INDIVIDUAL from the government. They are personal individual rights.

If the second amendment intent by the founding fathers was only national defense---and not about personal ownership of fire arms---then they would have had no reason what so ever to even mention barring the federal government from infringing on the right of the citizens to bear arms (the right to raise an army is already in the body of the constitution). If the concern was the ability to raise a militia---it would simply establish the right of the state or local government to create a militia. The state or local government could be the owner of the weapons (they would be kept in an armory)---no need to guarantee or even mention an individual right to own fire arms if the intent was simply to be sure Americans could have a militia. Furthermore---such a general local government provision would have no place in the Bill of Rights---as these amendments deal only with the protection of individual rights from the federal government.

This is not a debate anywhere other than among the nutty misinformed left. One need only read the writings in the Federalist papers to know the constitutional authors fully intended for Americans to have a constitutionally protected right to personal ownership of fire arms.

The moment you had to quote the Federalist Papers instead of the Constitution itself to make your point is the moment you lost all credibility. The Federalist Papers is not the Constitution. It's just opinion. That's like quoting Fox News to interpret the Constitution. Only the Supreme Court has the ability to interpret the Constitution. No one else. Not even the original founders opinions are part of the Constitution because they all varied and thus their "compromise" was the actual text itself and the faith they had in future Supreme Courts to interpret it.

But besides that, "common defense" is not national defense in specific. It means the common defense of society in general. In other words, it served the purpose of a very primitive version of what later became embodied in the 14th amendment. Sure you can argue national defense is a part of "common defense" only IF Congress decided it was necessary for common defense. Thus the whole point of the 2nd amendment is to make sure as part of "common defense" (or any other reason) that Congress didn't outlaw militias. It forced Congress to "well regulate" them for the purpose of.. (and I quote literally).. "the security of a free state". You can't hide from the actual text. It says what it says.

If you don't believe me, ask yourself. How in the world did we survive in a world where there was no 14th amendment? It was because of the very clause you mentioned above and others. But the moment the 14th amendment was ratified, it made all the other stuff redundant and largely absolete. If this isn't the case, then ask yourself, if the 2nd amendment means we have the true "uninfringed" right to bear arms, then why are AK47's outlawed and tactical nukes for that matter? Or Gatlin guns? All you have to do is look at the 14th amendment for the answer. DUH!!

AK47's aren't outlawed, neither are Gatling guns. The rest of every.single.thing. you said up there is jibber jabber, nonsense. Just stop, you look stupid.

(06-18-2022 09:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 08:04 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 07:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You were in good shape until you had to handle the boos.

Cornyn lives in a bubble in DC. He is an enabler of the stupid things democrats do. When people let him know, in the most non-violent way, that he is not representing them they way they expect, you get butthurt?

You are so chilled by booing that you are ok with someone who is supposed to be representing the people and protecting their rights getting in bed with Schumer. At a time when inflation is out of control, there's a baby formula shortage, gas prices spiking, and illegals flooding Cornyns state, he's working with democrats on gun control.

What do you expect them to do, happy clap him off the stage?

Hence, Trump.

I actually 100% agree with you on this UMsU. +3

You are correct on literally every point:

1. I am not a senator. John Cornyn is. He is supposed to know better, and deserves to be called out for serving as an enabler to unreliable, America-hating progressives.

2. Yes, I get butthurt when I see issues of this level of importance devolve into nursery-school tantrums. We're supposed to be better. It saddens me that we are not.

3. Sen. Shumer is among the worst of the worst. If at anytime we find ourselves aligned with him it ought to be a "red flag" (to coin a term) that we need to reconsider our position. But, again, I am not a senator. And I am willing to take into account that others, not named Shumer, seem to think that there is merit to what is being proposed.

4. I am not sure why you feel the need to throw inflation, baby formula, etc. into this discussion, but you are on a roll so I will defer.

5. No. I do not expect them to clap him off the stage. But is shouting him down the only alternative? Perhaps in Texas that is so.

Bottom line, I agree: This clip is how we now politically interact in America. Hence Trump. (And, at least in my view, we as a nation are worse off as a consequence.)

Because, right now, the most pressing issues affecting this country are inflation, gas prices, grocery prices, inflation, and illegal immigrants. Its not faux rage gun control. Why in the f*ck is he spending time on this?

Answer: Because he is an elitist. The same as Schumer, with an R next to his name.

Getting booed off the stage is how elites "get the message." He lives in a bubble in DC. For some reason, he believes controlling gun access to americans is whats important when americans are struggling with food prices, high gas prices, and spending a lot of time searching for baby formula.

Hence Trump.

(06-18-2022 05:07 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 09:06 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 08:04 AM)AdoptedMonarch Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 07:46 AM)UofMstateU Wrote:  You were in good shape until you had to handle the boos.

Cornyn lives in a bubble in DC. He is an enabler of the stupid things democrats do. When people let him know, in the most non-violent way, that he is not representing them they way they expect, you get butthurt?

You are so chilled by booing that you are ok with someone who is supposed to be representing the people and protecting their rights getting in bed with Schumer. At a time when inflation is out of control, there's a baby formula shortage, gas prices spiking, and illegals flooding Cornyns state, he's working with democrats on gun control.

What do you expect them to do, happy clap him off the stage?

Hence, Trump.

I actually 100% agree with you on this UMsU. +3

You are correct on literally every point:

1. I am not a senator. John Cornyn is. He is supposed to know better, and deserves to be called out for serving as an enabler to unreliable, America-hating progressives.

2. Yes, I get butthurt when I see issues of this level of importance devolve into nursery-school tantrums. We're supposed to be better. It saddens me that we are not.

3. Sen. Shumer is among the worst of the worst. If at anytime we find ourselves aligned with him it ought to be a "red flag" (to coin a term) that we need to reconsider our position. But, again, I am not a senator. And I am willing to take into account that others, not named Shumer, seem to think that there is merit to what is being proposed.

4. I am not sure why you feel the need to throw inflation, baby formula, etc. into this discussion, but you are on a roll so I will defer.

5. No. I do not expect them to clap him off the stage. But is shouting him down the only alternative? Perhaps in Texas that is so.

Bottom line, I agree: This clip is how we now politically interact in America. Hence Trump. (And, at least in my view, we as a nation are worse off as a consequence.)

Because, right now, the most pressing issues affecting this country are inflation, gas prices, grocery prices, inflation, and illegal immigrants. Its not faux rage gun control. Why in the f*ck is he spending time on this?

Answer: Because he is an elitist. The same as Schumer, with an R next to his name.

Getting booed off the stage is how elites "get the message." He lives in a bubble in DC. For some reason, he believes controlling gun access to americans is whats important when americans are struggling with food prices, high gas prices, and spending a lot of time searching for baby formula.

Hence Trump.

yeah ... .... #henceDJT

(06-18-2022 05:03 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  AK47's aren't outlawed, neither are Gatling guns. The rest of every.single.thing. you said up there is jibber jabber, nonsense. Just stop, you look stupid.

Okay maybe not completely outlawed, but heavily regulated to the point where they are virtually non-existent in society and those who own one are almost no risk to society. That type of regulation needs to apply to ALL semi-automatic weapons.

(06-19-2022 03:26 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 05:03 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  AK47's aren't outlawed, neither are Gatling guns. The rest of every.single.thing. you said up there is jibber jabber, nonsense. Just stop, you look stupid.

Okay maybe not completely outlawed, but heavily regulated to the point where they are virtually non-existent in society and those who own one are almost no risk to society. That type of regulation needs to apply to ALL semi-automatic weapons.

All you have to do is get rid of that pesky Constitution and you can have your authoritarian wet dream where no one can protect himself from your tyrannical government.

(06-19-2022 03:26 PM)scorpius Wrote:  

(06-18-2022 05:03 PM)TigerBlue4Ever Wrote:  AK47's aren't outlawed, neither are Gatling guns. The rest of every.single.thing. you said up there is jibber jabber, nonsense. Just stop, you look stupid.

Okay maybe not completely outlawed, but heavily regulated to the point where they are virtually non-existent in society and those who own one are almost no risk to society. That type of regulation needs to apply to ALL semi-automatic weapons.

If you don't know what you're talking about you might want to STFU. AK47's are as ubiquitous as AR15's, fool. They are EASILY obtainable. You can buy European surplus all day long. And you can buy brand new ones in any gun store and on-line from multiple sites. They just aren't quite as popular as an AR because they aren't as simplistic as the AR.

Did you know there are semi-auto pistols that can hold 30 plus round magazines? I can dump one in about 10 seconds, maybe under. As fast as you can pull the trigger which for someone like me is about 8.5 seconds - I just timed myself. But for you? Meh, you'd probably drop the gun and shoot someone accidentally...