Forty two guns! The guy owned forty two guns, forty two, most people

archives said:
Your wrong, I don't know how many times I have to explain it, but no Comstitutional right is absolute, none, there exists limits on each of them, even Scalia emphasized this point

Is there a limit on the number of guns a person owns, no, that was never the point, rather, given the quantity and type of guns this guy had one would think some red flag should have gone up somewhere along the way, and if there isn't any red flag, we certainly need one now
Click to expand...

Your?

What would be your limit on how many guns someone should be able to own? Last time I looked, the Constitution doesn't give you the right to make such a determination.
 
CFM said:
Your?

What would be your limit on how many guns someone should be able to own? Last time I looked, the Constitution doesn't give you the right to make such a determination.
Click to expand...

Really? Why do I have to explain things three or four times before some conservatives process?

Second time, "number of guns a person owns was never the point, rather, given the quantity and type of guns this guy had one would think some red flag should have gone up somewhere along the way, and if there isn't any red flag, we certainly need to examine if we could use one now"
 
archives said:
Really? Why do I have to explain things three or four times before some conservatives process?

Second time, "number of guns a person owns was never the point, rather, given the quantity and type of guns this guy had one would think some red flag should have gone up somewhere along the way, and if there isn't any red flag, we certainly need to examine if we could use one now"
Click to expand...

You said no right in the Constitution is absolute. How many guns is too much for one to own? The Constitution doesn't address the type, it addresses arms in general.

Again, your? If you're going to post something, don't invalidate it by posting the incorrect use of something. Learn your vs. you're before addressing me next time, boy.
 
archives said:
don't own forty two of anything, and this guy has forty two guns. What would be the thought behind amassing forty two guns? Why would anyone feel they need forty two guns? What in the hell does one plan to do with forty two guns?

And don't say he was a collector, it's not like guns are a rare commodity in the US, a scarce resource, we got more guns than people and they are easily accessible. Why does a guy go out of his way to assemble forty two guns?

And conservatives don't see a problem here?
Click to expand...

Does Bill the MOD want to weigh in on this? :D
 
6b6630ab09b7c27e2457dae483a2b6aa--gun-storage-urban-survival.jpg


gun-safe.jpg


5c3ec5b21035726f7804a39df70e3646--gun-closet-gun-storage.jpg


PR014.jpg


3d85b96b3a9a8637a004a279e2299683--gun-vault-reloading-room.jpg


5-piece-Front-Open-Large_1500_1327.png


e4122b6ae4fdb448c0cbc034fd766b10--man-cave-zombie-survival.jpg


:evilnod:
 
"Whenever a mass shooting occurs, supporters of gun rights often argue that it’s inappropriate to bring up political debates about gun control in the aftermath of a tragedy. For example, former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a strong supporter of gun rights, criticized former President Barack Obama for “trying to score cheap political points” when Obama mentioned gun control after a mass shooting in Charleston, South Carolina.

But if this argument is followed to its logical end, then it will never be the right time to discuss mass shootings, as Christopher Ingraham pointed out at the Washington Post. Under the broader definition of mass shootings, America has nearly one mass shooting a day."


Id.
 
Micawber said:
"Whenever a mass shooting occurs, supporters of gun rights often argue that it’s inappropriate to bring up political debates about gun control in the aftermath of a tragedy. For example, former Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal, a strong supporter of gun rights, criticized former President Barack Obama for “trying to score cheap political points” when Obama mentioned gun control after a mass shooting in Charleston, South Carolina.

But if this argument is followed to its logical end, then it will never be the right time to discuss mass shootings, as Christopher Ingraham pointed out at the Washington Post. Under the broader definition of mass shootings, America has nearly one mass shooting a day."


Id.
Click to expand...

The problem is you don't want to talk about it. You want those that you call gun lovers to sit down, shut up, and accept the rules you want to put in place.
 
Godless America said:
What you think is absurdly irrelevant, because the Constitution of the United States of America TRUMPS your opinion.

There is no limit placed on the number of firearms that a citizen may lawfully possess in the Constitution, nor is there a requirement to establish need.
Click to expand...

You are defending the mass murderer hoplomaniac then?
I see...
 
archives said:
don't own forty two of anything, and this guy has forty two guns. What would be the thought behind amassing forty two guns? Why would anyone feel they need forty two guns? What in the hell does one plan to do with forty two guns?

And don't say he was a collector, it's not like guns are a rare commodity in the US, a scarce resource, we got more guns than people and they are easily accessible. Why does a guy go out of his way to assemble forty two guns?

And conservatives don't see a problem here?
Click to expand...

that is correct. I don't see a problem. Everyone should be encouraged to own arsenals.

If you are going to have a real conversation, you should at least attempt to understand the other side that you are debating.

I don't believe in the 2nd amendment to hunt deer. I believe in it so the citizenry is capable of armed insurrection, should the need ever occur.
 
evince said:
and I am one of them


never completely disarm the people


all we need is enough guns for the first round if the government tries to enslave us.


that gives the people time to MAKE more guns.


will they come for the machinists first?

Nope

but you can bet American Maachinists will make fucking guns if they try
Click to expand...

i give you.. partial credit.
 
Private William said:
that is correct. I don't see a problem. Everyone should be encouraged to own arsenals.

If you are going to have a real conversation, you should at least attempt to understand the other side that you are debating.

I don't believe in the 2nd amendment to hunt deer. I believe in it so the citizenry is capable of armed insurrection, should the need ever occur.
Click to expand...

Private William is correct.
 
TTQ64 said:
It's a great question that you probably won't get a answer to.

I don't think everyone has a right to own a gun, so I can't answer. Why anyone would need 42 is just absurd.
Click to expand...

Why you think it's your place to determine for anyone but yourself how many of something someone needs is ridiculous.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top