Potus hopeful Clinton....resume'

[caseyjones955]

He did alter background checks quite unfavorably. Saying that an "overwhelming majority of the American people, including gun owners, support". If blatant defiance of the people and abuse of power is what tread lightly means than hes doing great. Im pretty sure he has everyones attention now. This should inspire some seething healthy anger.

 

[MtnMax/Magniac]

He has no concept of what "shall not be infringed" means.

 

[old timer]

He has no concept of what "shall not be infringed" means.

That's what you and I read...to him , it reads , " shall not be infringed , unless I proclaim otherwise "...:bang head:

 

[MtnMax/Magniac]

To all liberal gun control advocates . . .

 

[cliffclaven]

I hate politics, and politicians. They are ALL worthless. R, D, doesn't matter. Their job is to fuck over the working class. They want serfs and kings, and we're getting closer by the day. It's not like your vote for president counts anyway. Gore v Bush proved that.

 

[forestdaledave]

After 8 years of paranoid talk of the Government taking away people's guns it hasn't happened. Is it time to start looking for another boogey man? But saddle up your horses Trump will save the day and deport all Mexicans, Muslims, Mormons, any group with a M letter and overlook the 30,000 Americans that are killed each year due to guns. Such a small price to pay to go, like to see a movie, and be safe. I was thinking just the other day that the second amendment was brought to us by the same guys who institutionalized slavery so how could they have gotten it wrong? Since it is the law of the land, as long as we ignore the part that speaks to an organized militia the government could fundamentally change the landscape as it pertains to gun ownership without violating the wording of the 2 amendment. Simply by limiting all private ownership of guns to .22 single shot long rifles. See simple. No rights would be violated, every person would be armed because, as far as I have read, the Constitution never says what kind of arms people should be allowed to own. Just that the right to be armed shall not be infringed. It would work out real good for every one. For you guys no more buying expensive ammunition and if was in a mall or movie theater and some wacko tried to do a mass shooting after the first shot you could use your long gun to beat them about the head and shoulders. The only people that would be upset would be the gun makers, NRA , Republican politicians and morticians.

 

[Specs95t]

After 8 years of paranoid talk of the Government taking away people's guns it hasn't happened. Is it time to start looking for another boogey man? But saddle up your horses Trump will save the day and deport all Mexicans, Muslims, Mormons, any group with a M letter and overlook the 30,000 Americans that are killed each year due to guns. Such a small price to pay to go, like to see a movie, and be safe. I was thinking just the other day that the second amendment was brought to us by the same guys who institutionalized slavery so how could they have gotten it wrong? Since it is the law of the land, as long as we ignore the part that speaks to an organized militia the government could fundamentally change the landscape as it pertains to gun ownership without violating the wording of the 2 amendment. Simply by limiting all private ownership of guns to .22 single shot long rifles. See simple. No rights would be violated, every person would be armed because, as far as I have read, the Constitution never says what kind of arms people should be allowed to own. Just that the right to be armed shall not be infringed. It would work out real good for every one. For you guys no more buying expensive ammunition and if was in a mall or movie theater and some wacko tried to do a mass shooting after the first shot you could use your long gun to beat them about the head and shoulders. The only people that would be upset would be the gun makers, NRA , Republican politicians and morticians.

As soon as you wrote "simply by limiting all private ownership of guns", you basically said that you are willing to violate the second amendment.

If you are a history buff, you will know that every dictatorship limits the people's power to fight back.

For what it's worth, your concept is the first step to dismantling the Constitution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[caseyjones955]

After 8 years of paranoid talk of the Government taking away people's guns it hasn't happened. Is it time to start looking for another boogey man? But saddle up your horses Trump will save the day and deport all Mexicans, Muslims, Mormons, any group with a M letter and overlook the 30,000 Americans that are killed each year due to guns. Such a small price to pay to go, like to see a movie, and be safe. I was thinking just the other day that the second amendment was brought to us by the same guys who institutionalized slavery so how could they have gotten it wrong? Since it is the law of the land, as long as we ignore the part that speaks to an organized militia the government could fundamentally change the landscape as it pertains to gun ownership without violating the wording of the 2 amendment. Simply by limiting all private ownership of guns to .22 single shot long rifles. See simple. No rights would be violated, every person would be armed because, as far as I have read, the Constitution never says what kind of arms people should be allowed to own. Just that the right to be armed shall not be infringed. It would work out real good for every one. For you guys no more buying expensive ammunition and if was in a mall or movie theater and some wacko tried to do a mass shooting after the first shot you could use your long gun to beat them about the head and shoulders. The only people that would be upset would be the gun makers, NRA , Republican politicians and morticians.

The only reason that "boogey man" is at bay is because we are mostly armed to the teeth, it's a great deterrent to those that would seek to infringe on our rights. I know there is nothing I can say to change your views so it's all good, I wont try but if/when the day comes the rest of us will be ready to defend your right to have your own opinion. If we ever did give up our guns we would loose so much more than just guns. :confused2:

Sidenote: I got my NRA membership last week!

 

[tothemax93]

Another step closer to jail. Gen Patraeus resigned, Got a 40,000 dollar fine and 2 years probation for the same crime. The maximum for the offense is $100,000 dollar fine and one year in jail. She deserves all of that:damn angry:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/201...-from-most-secretive-classified-programs.html

 

[forestdaledave]

As soon as you wrote "simply by limiting all private ownership of guns", you basically said that you are willing to violate the second amendment.

If you are a history buff, you will know that every dictatorship limits the people's power to fight back.

For what it's worth, your concept is the first step to dismantling the Constitution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Never said to disarm people or violate 2 amendment. Reread.

 

[caseyjones955]

"Since it is the law of the land, as long as we ignore the part that speaks to an organized militia the government could fundamentally change the landscape as it pertains to gun ownership without violating the wording of the 2 amendment. Simply by limiting all private ownership of guns to .22 single shot long rifles. See simple. No rights would be violated, every person would be armed because, as far as I have read, the Constitution never says what kind of arms people should be allowed to own"

I interpreted your post the same way that spec did, but I see what your saying about allowing citizens to have guns but limit them to a .22 single shot. The two biggest problems I see with passing legislation like that is,

1. Were not handing over our guns, regardless of new legislation. It just wont happen. I can assure you that if they thought they could disarm us it would have been done long ago. Any such legislation would be completely unenforceable. No potus would even dare to try it lest their agenda includes inducing a full on revolution.

2. If we DID hand over all our high cal and automatic firearms, the criminals (including govt) would still have all the above mentioned guns, leaving us vulnerable to attack and seriously outgunned.
Gun control is simply not a feasible option, there is no pragmatic way it could work. Our being well armed is the ONLY reason we have any freedom/rights/privacy left at all. Gun violence is reprehensible and I hate it as much as the next guy but idiot control might be a better way to address the issues. Many of the high profile shootings were perpetrated by people with Hx of mental illness.

Oh, if you were trolling then you totally got me :clapping:

 

[MtnMax/Magniac]

He's always trolling, it's the one thing he does well.

 

[Specs95t]

The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Forestdaledave: the above has no limitations on Arms.

So I'll restate my point: your opinion about limiting the types of Arms violates the Constitution.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[caseyjones955]

He's always trolling, it's the one thing he does well.

It occurred to me while I was responding that he is probably trolling, in my defense I used to live in the Seattle area and met many liberals with such wildly impractical ideology, but those were Prius owners, not Max owners so I didn't catch it right away haha.

All our amendments are vital, but the 2nd is likely the most protected IMHO, and Americans would react with swift and blinding efficiency to repeal any such absurdity and ignore it until then.

 

[MtnMax/Magniac]

In every one of his posts that I've read, he supports things that are bad for citizens and good for big gov't, and is against anything good for citizens.

 

[caseyjones955]

In every one of his posts that I've read, he supports things that are bad for citizens and good for big gov't, and is against anything good for citizens.

I thought you were talking about Dave but it sounds like you are now talking about Obama. When :hitsfan: we know who will drop his single shot capgun and run to hide behind the waves of well armed patriots. As luck would have it, the well equipped citizens generally stand for all of America, even liberals and the ones that are scared of guns, you will be covered Dave. No matter how wrong you are we'll protect your right to be so wrong haha HAHAHA.


:flagwaver: :BoomSmilie_anim::Guns::gun shoot::2gunsfiring_v1::th_biggun::flagwaver:

 

[MtnMax/Magniac]

Refer back to post #44 in this thread.

 

[dannymax]

I thought you were talking about Dave but it sounds like you are now talking about Obama. When :hitsfan: we know who will drop his single shot capgun and run to hide behind the waves of well armed patriots. As luck would have it, the well equipped citizens generally stand for all of America, even liberals and the ones that are scared of guns, you will be covered Dave. No matter how wrong you are we'll protect your right to be so wrong haha HAHAHA.


:flagwaver: :BoomSmilie_anim::Guns::gun shoot::2gunsfiring_v1::th_biggun::flagwaver:

Up to a point Casey....up to a point, then.............well :confused2:

 

[Traumahawk]

He's always trolling, it's the one thing he does well.

+1. One thing that people need to keep in mind. There are several people on this forum that have him blocked (just dont like his posts), and that way you cant see what he posts. BUT....if you REPLY AND COPY HIS POSTS, there is no way to block that, and people that have him blocked, can still see what he posts.

 

[Specs95t]

He's always trolling, it's the one thing he does well.

I ended up experiencing this "trolling" a little during the last set of posts...

The good news is that we are united and clearly show support for each other.

Best part is we live in a free country, where free speech is a right. Just like the right to bear arms...

OR maybe we should take a hack at restricting that one too:

How about: free speech - to those that own guns?

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk