Ideas for reducing illegal guns

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

If you say "I support the second amendment" and use the word "but, except, however" in the same sentence YOU DO NOT SUPPORT THE SECOND AMENDMENT.

fuck you and your gun rules bullshit. It will NEVER happen. They can pass laws all day but real American gun owners will roll their eyes, reload and say, " I've got something here to shove up your ass."

So you would have no problem if you were sitting on a commercial plane waiting for takeoff and you saw someone coming down the aisle with an AK-47 slung over his shoulder and a couple of Glocks in his waistband? Maybe a hand grenade or two?

I know I'm exaggerating to make a point, but some gun control laws are 100% necessary, hence the statement in the Heller decision:

It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

So based on your line of reasoning, I do not support the Second Amendment, because I want that "but" in there.

[JD Barleycorn]

Every couple of years I call New London and ask but the closet thing I ever found was a report of someone robbing cab drivers with a really big silver gun (one gun was a Ruger Redhawk, stainless, 7 1/2 inch barrel, 44 magnum). Since the lead detective's partner was taken down with a city councilwoman for heroin distribution I wonder. May as well take another shot at it now.

[essence]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

Every couple of years I call New London and ask but the closet thing I ever found was a report of someone robbing cab drivers with a really big silver gun (one gun was a Ruger Redhawk, stainless, 7 1/2 inch barrel, 44 magnum). Since the lead detective's partner was taken down with a city councilwoman for heroin distribution I wonder. May as well take another shot at it now.

I assume you are talking about your stolen pistols.

[LovingKayla]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

So based on your line of reasoning, I do not support the Second Amendment, because I want that "but" in there.

That's correct. What a smart boy you are.

Trying to make it so over the top doesn't change my beliefs.
Whatever.

[Yssup Rider]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

You're an ignorant jackass putz, Assup the jackass:

(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.

(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes.

So why did you feel compelled to leave part 2) out of your description of Heller, IBRuuning&Hiding?

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.


YOU'RE A LIAR BY OMISSION.

[essence]

Yssup, as the OP,would it be too much to ask you to stop your vendetta and STFU unless you have something to contribute?

You have said what you wanted to say, it doesn't need to be repeated.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Yssup Rider

So why did you feel compelled to leave part 2) out of your description of Heller, IBRuuning&Hiding?

(2) Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.


YOU'RE A LIAR BY OMISSION.

You're a shit spewing animated piece of sub-human excrement, Assup the jackass: a golem. Your every post is a dullard-lie, Assup the jackass! Your post in no manner changes the Heller ruling. Weapons "in common use" are Constitutionally protected, individual rights. Your lying ass claim otherwise is just that: a fucking-retard lie told by a moronic piece of animated shit.

[Guest032516]

Originally Posted by LovingKayla

That's correct. What a smart boy you are.

Trying to make it so over the top doesn't change my beliefs.
Whatever.

So, if I say I support the second amendment, BUT, no one should be allowed to carry a gun into an elementary school or into a courthouse, then you think I am NOT a supporter of the second amendment?

Sad, truly sad.

[CuteOldGuy]

Originally Posted by essence

Yssup, as the OP,would it be too much to ask you to stop your vendetta and STFU unless you have something to contribute?

You have said what you wanted to say, it doesn't need to be repeated.

LOL! I gotta see if this works!

[essence]

Originally Posted by CuteOldGuy

LOL! I gotta see if this works!

Me too, otherwise I will have to find another hobby, model airplanes or something.

Nice legs!

[Yssup Rider]

You get no privileges as the OP. Follow the thread and have a big cup of STFU yourself.

INRunning&Hiding deliberately left part of the Heller ruling out. I called him on it and it turned into a shit fight, with the Dynamic Duo, Buttman and IBRobin, chiming in. Per usual.

But as OP, you deserve order, right? So here's something relevant. I think your idea of banning Tarantino movies is downright foppish.

Beyond that, BLOW ME and find a other hobby! You should know by now that A LOT of Americans aren't going to admit that ANY gun is illegal. and they'll fight to the death to defend their "right."

So what do you expect to hear in a forum comprised by and large by self loathing Americans with massive inferiority complexes? Logic?

Oh yeah, blow me.

[CuteOldGuy]

I knew it couldn't be done!

[Yssup Rider]

Unaliar has spoken!

Oh well.

Q: Is Whiny off his game again?

A: DEPENDS!

[JD Barleycorn]

I wanted to get to this earlier today but had to be somewhere. Your example of guns on a plane is not about gun laws but about airline regs. An airline could prohibit alcohol on a plane even your own. An airline could prohibit naked people on a plane. An airline can prohibit ugly people (sorry Whatzup) on a plane. And the airlines have prohibited guns on planes. I have seen airlines (not major of course) allow people to bring on guns as carry on items for trips to hunting sites. An airline could also allow nude people on planes and have done just that. Don't confuse gun laws with airline regulations. Now the government claims the airports as their property so they make the rules for the airports.

[Chica Chaser]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

An airline could also allow nude people on planes and have done just that.