It’s Time to Ban Guns. Yes, All of Them

So given your vast understanding of the Constitution exactly which weapons do you think should be regulated. Be specific. Rocket propelled grenades, stingers, land mines, fully automatic guns. Where would you draw the line on the right to bear arms. Can I have a tactical nuke under the right to bear arms?

Maybe given your vast understanding you can define just exactly what is meant by " arms". Maybe we should just limit the definition of "arms" to weapons available when the Constitution was written.

 

If that is what is necessary to fully expose the stupidity of the arguement yes.

 

Arms, understood as small arms, those carried by soldiers. Show me a nuke that soldiers carry.

 

Why do you assume that advocates of responsible gun control have an anti gun stance.

 

I am surprised at the amount of people who believe only criminals, murderers and terrorist along with the state should be the only ones to own guns. I would assume those who want an entire ban on all guns know the criminals, murderers and terrorist will never abide by the law. If they did there would be no crime, murder or terrorist blowing up things and killing people. But then again, I suspect they think the ban would be the only law criminals, murderers and terrorists would abide by.

Then truly the state would be all powerful.

 

So any weapon that can be carried by an individual is protected by the "right to bear arms". Or would you care to actually define small arms?

 

And yet no such thing was done.

 

Lenin disarmed the Russian citizens right before the bloody, and gruesome Russian Revolution. The next thing they did was to deport, slaughter, starve, enslave, generally terrorize the disarmed Russian people, and enthrone the world's biggest monster--Stalin. For those of you who think communism and socialism are the answer to the rich getting richer, and poor getting poorer: you need to read Russian history. The HMFIC in charge did not take from the rich and give to the poor. They took from the rich and kept it for themselves, and used it to finance their regime of terror against the Russian population.

Phoebe Maltz. Same ones as before.

 

The Bristish tried this with the Colonists. It's why we have a second Amendment.

We all know what happened next. If you guys want another war between Americans, keep it up. History often repeats itself when people forget it.

 

Because they happen in gun free zones.

 

1. Guns can protect you without ever firing them.
2. Thanks we will and we don't need your permission.

 

In international arms control, small arms include revolvers and pistols, rifles and carbines, assault rifles, submachine guns and light machine guns. All of which are legal to own.

 

Of course you don't agree with this video, I knew you wouldn't, but thankfully the majority of Americans do.

Here is another reason why liberals like you will not be able to destroy our 2nd amendment rights for Americans being able to protect themselves from low life thugs, and islamo-nazis

 

They've never been in the hands of those that have sought it have they.....

 

So the Georgia Legislature, being a gun free zone is as risk for a mass killing? Do you think it would be a good idea to pass on your informed opinion to them?

You point a gun at someone for one reason and one reason only - you intend to kill them if they take any action you deem hostile. Not warn, not threaten, not wound - KILL - because that is the purpose of a gun.

So, in your perfect world, you'd make these types of weapons readily available to the public? Jeez. Sounds a lot like Yemen.

 

Lots of things can be used to kill people. I almost had the occasion to plant a butcher knife in a crazy man's head last week. He was rattling my bedroom window. If he could have gotten the door open, I would probably be dead because I don't have a gun, and he could have overpowered me. But butcher knives don't kill people, people kill people. On the other hand, I could have smashed in his head with a heavy lamp. Then it would be lamps don't kill people, people kill people. But really, if I had had a gun, I would not have been petrified like I was, and the 'kill'. if it came down to that, wouldn't have been as messy.

The idea of a pretty, pink, rhinestone encrusted 22 is sounding pretty good. A well-aimed (crotch or head) small caliber gun can be quite effective. All women should have one. Unarmed we are sitting ducks.

Anyway, what are you going to ban next? Compound bows? Butcher knives

 

I said the same thing about alcohol, why haven't you commented on that?

Guns are designed to kill, and so is alcohol, the big difference is that alcohol kills a thousand times more, and it's tentacles of destruction are passed on to generation after generation

 

They already are and always have been, so what's your point?

 

You can make a gun that fires steel projectiles for under $10. Go to youtube.

But I guess when you ban guns, you think people will stop making them. Hmm. I think when you ban guns, you'll have all manner of weapons on the streets soon, provided you are able to successfully round up and hunt down the current gun owners.

 

Name one mass shooting that didn't happen in a gun free zone.

We can post story after story after story where people have saved themselves or others because they were armed. Do you doubt it? You don't want a gun - nobody cares. No one is trying to sell you one.

 

Go for a .38 and use hollow points, or get a shotgun for home defense.

A .22 is fine and dandy but if the person you are shooting at is on an illegal substance a .22 ain't gonna do it unless you hit him directly in the spinal column or cause traumatic brain injury.

It's just such a light round and a lot of manufacturers are making them so hot right now they are going completely through leaving an exit wound(I've dealt with 4 .22 shootings this year and 3/4 were clean through and throughs). Meaning not enough damage is occurring inside the body.

A shotgun or hollow points would alleviate this problem, and a shotgun has spread and the round doesn't travel as far as a hand gun round meaning collateral damage is far less likely.

 

Didn't that well-known progressive, George W. Bush, also ignore the Constitution?

Enjoy: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mXtBZPONSCc

 

Paranoids are always scaring themselves with their "Liberals are going to take my guns away!" hysteria.

The Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear arms, and there is not the remotest likelihood of its being repealed.

Avid gunsters would be far more useful if their emotional frenzy were, instead, directed at forming viable approaches to reduce the 30,000+ deaths by firearms every year - accidents, suicides, etc.

With so many young children being shot to death in the US, why can't the passion be directed toward preventing it?

 

Drive-by archery? Interesting.

 

ANY =100% idea yah slipped again LOL
black panthers of the 1960s would of disagree with yah