Shots just fired in Trumps vicinity. Part II

  • Thread starter Thread starter 70 Mach 1
  • Start date Start date
Dan Gleesak said:
That’s crap imo
Just because tech exists doesn’t mean that every American citizen should have access to it.
Click to expand...
Every responsible American should. The USA is virtually invincible with a well armed citizenry. And crime would be extremely low. Please honestly look at where high crime rates are and line that up with where unconstitutional gun laws exist. It is night and day. Also do some research on the squashing of stats that show when armed citizens stop crime.
 
IronHeadSlim said:
You clearly have no mental resources to understand the intent of the founding fathers.
Click to expand...
I understand the intent of the founding fathers.
I don’t believe the founding fathers understood that some day a single weapon could level an entire city.
 
Dan Gleesak said:
I understand the intent of the founding fathers.
I don’t believe the founding fathers understood that some day a single weapon could level an entire city.
Click to expand...
Drag queens and communism is clearly the answer.

:unsure:
 
  • Haha
Reactions: rsm
Dan Gleesak said:
I understand the intent of the founding fathers.
I don’t believe the founding fathers understood that some day a single weapon could level an entire city.
Click to expand...
How the fuck do you get there from a discussion about the number of rounds in a magazine.

Do you think the severely mentally challenged POTUS should have access to that single weapon?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rsm
IronHeadSlim said:
How the fuck do you get there from a discussion about the number of rounds in a magazine.

Do you think the severely mentally challenged POTUS should have access to that single weapon?
Click to expand...

That is where I started the discussion before the dimwit chorus chimed in and took it down to their level.
Some are saying that there should be absolutely zero difference between what weapons the military can use and what civilians should legally be able to own.

Most would think that is ridiculous, so my point was that if society can “draw a line” between would should be legal and what not, it’s not valid to cry “infringement” every time that line moves past your favorite gun.

If you don’t think banning nuclear weapons is infringement, it’s tough to say that banning a certain type of gun is infringement
 
  • Haha
Reactions: rsm
Dan Gleesak said:
That is where I started the discussion before the dimwit chorus chimed in and took it down to their level.
Some are saying that there should be absolutely zero difference between what weapons the military can use and what civilians should legally be able to own.

Most would think that is ridiculous, so my point was that if society can “draw a line” between would should be legal and what not, it’s not valid to cry “infringement” every time that line moves past your favorite gun.

If you don’t think banning nuclear weapons is infringement, it’s tough to say that banning a certain type of gun is infringement
Click to expand...
16 hours a day.

:rolleyes:
 
  • Like
Reactions: rsm
You can not selectively ban any weapon once folks know how to make them. You can only severely punish those who misuse them to deter others. You may wish the world was in a different position but that won’t change anything. The constitution clearly gives me the right to defend me and mine. When that right is infringed we are all in danger. The potential is for American streets to become an order of magnitude worse than they are now. Do you really want to be a defenseless coward when that day comes. Do you really think the police at any level are going to protect you, Dan?
 
  • Like
Reactions: rsm
Dan Gleesak said:
I understand the intent of the founding fathers.
I don’t believe the founding fathers understood that some day a single weapon could level an entire city.
Click to expand...
the Founding Fathers certainly understood technology of war would progress; most were scholars of history, philosophy and more.

the Founding Fathers also understood government tyranny; and knew full well the American government they founded could one day become tyrannical.

if the American colonists did not have similar weapons of war to the British Empire (e.g., rifles and long rifles vs muskets), there would have been no revolution. Many of the battles in North America prior to the revolution and during the revolution were to gain arms, especially cannon, rifles and gun powder...the British troops sent to Lexington and Concord were after weapon stockpiles, having occupied Boston and taken those supplies already....Paul Revere rode to Lexington to warn the British were coming...

As it was, the colonists faced one of the largest land armies and largest navies of the time, and the odds were against them, yet they risked everything including their lives and wealth, to be free from tyranny.
 
Dan Gleesak said:
Call your therapist
Click to expand...
ZIEgzSj.jpg
 
Dan Gleesak said:
That is where I started the discussion before the dimwit chorus chimed in and took it down to their level.
Some are saying that there should be absolutely zero difference between what weapons the military can use and what civilians should legally be able to own.

Most would think that is ridiculous, so my point was that if society can “draw a line” between would should be legal and what not, it’s not valid to cry “infringement” every time that line moves past your favorite gun.

If you don’t think banning nuclear weapons is infringement, it’s tough to say that banning a certain type of gun is infringement
Click to expand...

If the Founding Fathers wanted to "draw a line" between legal weapons vs illegal weapons, they would have done so. Clearly that was not their intent, which many of us have been trying to tell you. Their intent was the American people were to have access to, and own, and use the same weapons of war available to the military.

"On every question of construction of the Constitution let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." - Thomas Jefferson
 
IronHeadSlim said:
You can not selectively ban any weapon once folks know how to make them. You can only severely punish those who misuse them to deter others. You may wish the world was in a different position but that won’t change anything. The constitution clearly gives me the right to defend me and mine. When that right is infringed we are all in danger. The potential is for American streets to become an order of magnitude worse than they are now. Do you really want to be a defenseless coward when that day comes. Do you really think the police at any level are going to protect you, Dan?
Click to expand...

+1

"I would rather be exposed to the inconveniences attending too much liberty than to those attending too small a degree of it." - Thomas Jefferson
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top