the NRA has trained the billies to conflate 'guns' with 'assault weapons'

[Althea]

so you can't provide a simple explanation of why you feel there has to be a law about something, other than 'why not'?????

I think the onus should be on you to explain why anyone would need to walk the aisles of Walmart with riot gear and an assault weapon?

[Getin the ring]

why is it that the left wants to punish law abiding citizens because of others wrongdoings?

[Ralph]

so even though most Republicans support assault weapons ban, despite Trump saying 'no appetite'...……..right on cue the buffoons start chanting "Dems want to ban guns!"

there's difference bozos, try to keep up


https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ns-ban-1452586

Assault weapons? That's the FALSE PREMISE. Simply because a gun is manufactured to "look" like a military weapon does not make it an assault weapon when the manufacturer stays within the limits of the legislated laws already on the books. A weapon that fires in a semi-automatic mode does not constitute being defined as an assault weapon. If such were the case all "automatic" 22 rifles, shotguns, and pistols would be included as being defined as an ASSAULT WEAPON.

Truth: That's the plan is it not......fake legislation under the pretense that legal firearms should be banned because they LOOK LIKE a military weapon....then moveon.org to the confiscation of all weapons under the FAKE LEGISLATION?

Just how "THINK" do you "STUPID" the people of this nation to be?

Its not THE GUN that kills....its the hard heart of the person that makes that inanimate tool function. Any tool can be used as a murder weapon when directed by an insane criminal heart. Just as is exampled in the past few years. Simple tools have been used to inflict terror and kill innocents ranging from a car to a simple bic lighter....to box cutters.

You leftists are duplicitous bastards. The only thing standing in the way of FUNDAMENTALLY CHANGING this NATION (as promised by one BHO) into a full fledged socialist nation where the people serve the state instead of having the state serve the people as per the founding of this republic......THE US CONSTITUTION.

That's why the attack against the CONSTIUTION (2nd amendment) begins before bodies are even cold when this manufactured mass murder crisis is reported 24/7.....while the 48 weekly victims of gun violence in cities like Chicago, NY, LA....(all liberal strong holds with the violence being directed via minority on minority killings sprees using.....with THE HAND GUN already being regulated via local laws to hell and back....with no results.) This GOES UNREPORTED. Why? Because the continued and escalated shooting by criminals cannot be controlled through knee jerk acts of legislation...or liberal cities would see no gun violence. Logic is hell is it not? But according to liberal logic.....regulating the GUN even more will reduce gun violence nationally when it does not work locally? Really?

Why was there no reporting on the 48 victims of gun violence during the same time period (last week in Chicago) when the mass shooting took place? Black on Black gun violence does not promote the removal of the 2nd amendment. Such does not fit into the propaganda mold to remove firearms from THE PEOPLE by attacking our CONSTITUTION. If liberal acts of legislation that limit firearms WORKS.....Chicago should already be crime free in relation to gun violence...no?

[Getin the ring]

why is it that the left wants to punish law abiding citizens because of others wrongdoings?

[SmarterthanYou]

I think the onus should be on you to explain why anyone would need to walk the aisles of Walmart with riot gear and an assault weapon?

but you were the one that stated there should be a law. that onus to explain why is on you. and in case you haven't been paying attention to the news lately, there was a homicidal maniac in el paso that killed 22 people...........that would be a good enough reason why anyone would need to walk the aisles with body armor and an AR or AK

[Ralph]

but you were the one that stated there should be a law. that onus to explain why is on you. and in case you haven't been paying attention to the news lately, there was a homicidal maniac in el paso that killed 22 people...........that would be a good enough reason why anyone would need to walk the aisles with body armor and an AR or AK

Why did you fail to mention the "48" minority victims of gun violence in Chicago last week? Thats more than double than the sensational "22" that you seemed all concerned about in Texas. Why? Black lives really don't matter? Of the 48 people shot in Chicago last week.....many minorities died because of gun violence in a city that already regulates the gun to hell and back...but you expect more regulation to work nationally? Really?

Do you know what would really work? ENFORCING THE DAMN LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS (but that will not happen because anytime a minority is questioned by POLICE the cops are charged with minority profiling of the poor black hoods) ....instead of placing more regulations of an unenforceable nature on the books.

[SmarterthanYou]

Why did you fail to mention the "48" minority victims of gun violence in Chicago last week? Thats more than double than the sensational "22" that you seemed all concerned about in Texas. Why? Black lives really don't matter? Of the 48 people shot in Chicago last week.....many minorities died because of gun violence in a city that already regulates the gun to hell and back...but you expect more regulation to work nationally? Really?

chicago is the epicenter of the democrat mafia. its' been lost for decades. until the democrats clean up that city, I cant really care what happens there. Its part of why I moved out of that state.

Do you know what would really work? ENFORCING THE DAMN LAWS ALREADY ON THE BOOKS (but that will not happen because anytime a minority is questioned by POLICE the cops are charged with minority profiling of the poor black hoods) ....instead of placing more regulations of an unenforceable nature on the books.

you obviously haven't gotten a good look at what I post here.........

[countryboy]

The NRA has got Trump against the wall demanding no assault weapon ban or back ground check; just sell it to who ever.

We already have background checks. So, I have no idea what you, Trump, or the NRA is talking about.

Can you tell us what makes an "assault weapon" more deadly than any other gun?

[countryboy]

so even though most Republicans support assault weapons ban, despite Trump saying 'no appetite'...……..right on cue the buffoons start chanting "Dems want to ban guns!"

there's difference bozos, try to keep up


https://www.politico.com/story/2019/...ns-ban-1452586

There are plenty of dems who are on record favoring all out bans. Even your Dear Leader, "The One" said we need Australia style gun control.

[ThatOwlWoman]

Both sides of the gun problem should find this interesting.
~~~
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t just say Congress shall not infringe the right to “keep and bear arms.” It specifically says that right exists in order to maintain “a well-regulated militia.” Even the late conservative Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia admitted those words weren’t in there by accident. Oh, and the Constitution doesn’t just say a “militia.” It says a “well-regulated” militia.

What did the Founding Fathers mean by that? We don’t have to guess because they told us. In Federalist No. 29 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained at great length precisely what a “well-regulated militia” was, why the Founding Fathers thought we needed one, and why they wanted to protect it from being disarmed by the federal government.
...
It should be a properly constituted, ordered and drilled (“well-regulated”) military force, organized state by state, explained Hamilton. Each state militia should be a “select corps,” “well-trained” and able to perform all the “operations of an army.” The militia needed “uniformity in … organization and discipline,” wrote Hamilton, so that it could operate like a proper army “in camp and field,” and so that it could gain the “essential … degree of proficiency in military functions.” And although it was organized state by state, it needed to be under the explicit control of the national government. The “well-regulated militia” was under the command of the president. It was “the military arm” of the government.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wh...you-2016-06-14

Link to the Federalist Papers #29 referenced in the above excerpts:

https://www.congress.gov/resources/d...alistPapers-29

[reagansghost]

What did the Founding Fathers mean by that? We don’t have to guess because they told us. In Federalist No. 29 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained at great length precisely what a “well-regulated militia” was, why the Founding Fathers thought we needed one, and why they wanted to protect it from being disarmed by the federal government.
...

It should be a properly constituted, ordered and drilled (“well-regulated”) military force, organized state by state, explained Hamilton. Each state militia should be a “select corps,” “well-trained” and able to perform all the “operations of an army.” The militia needed “uniformity in … organization and discipline,” wrote Hamilton, so that it could operate like a proper army “in camp and field,” and so that it could gain the “essential … degree of proficiency in military functions.” And although it was organized state by state, it needed to be under the explicit control of the national government. The “well-regulated militia” was under the command of the president. It was “the military arm” of the government.

thanks, perfect

Hamilton described our National Guard above

today we have anti-federal government radicalized right wing domestic terrorists attempting to create their own non-regulated militias for political purposes

traitors all

[reagansghost]

chicago is the epicenter of the democrat mafia. its' been lost for decades. until the democrats clean up that city, I cant really care what happens there. Its part of why I moved out of that state.

you're one silly billie

Chicago wasn't even mentioned by mouth breathers anywhere before Obama got elected

go out and play little boy

[SmarterthanYou]

you're one silly billie

Chicago wasn't even mentioned by mouth breathers anywhere before Obama got elected

go out and play little boy

hey kid, I was born and raised 90 minutes west of chicago. it was talked about plenty in illinois circles. you nationwide democrats didn't give a fuck then or now

[SmarterthanYou]

thanks, perfect

Hamilton described our National Guard above

today we have anti-federal government radicalized right wing domestic terrorists attempting to create their own non-regulated militias for political purposes

traitors all

you realize that hamilton was ALONE in that thinking, therefore LOSING that argument??? of course not, you also completely accept that idiot justice burgers statement about the 2nd being perpetrated fraud.............morons

[countryboy]

Both sides of the gun problem should find this interesting.
~~~
The Second Amendment of the U.S. Constitution doesn’t just say Congress shall not infringe the right to “keep and bear arms.” It specifically says that right exists in order to maintain “a well-regulated militia.” Even the late conservative Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonin Scalia admitted those words weren’t in there by accident. Oh, and the Constitution doesn’t just say a “militia.” It says a “well-regulated” militia.

What did the Founding Fathers mean by that? We don’t have to guess because they told us. In Federalist No. 29 of the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton explained at great length precisely what a “well-regulated militia” was, why the Founding Fathers thought we needed one, and why they wanted to protect it from being disarmed by the federal government.
...
It should be a properly constituted, ordered and drilled (“well-regulated”) military force, organized state by state, explained Hamilton. Each state militia should be a “select corps,” “well-trained” and able to perform all the “operations of an army.” The militia needed “uniformity in … organization and discipline,” wrote Hamilton, so that it could operate like a proper army “in camp and field,” and so that it could gain the “essential … degree of proficiency in military functions.” And although it was organized state by state, it needed to be under the explicit control of the national government. The “well-regulated militia” was under the command of the president. It was “the military arm” of the government.

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/wh...you-2016-06-14

Link to the Federalist Papers #29 referenced in the above excerpts:

https://www.congress.gov/resources/d...alistPapers-29

It says no such thing. If that were the case it wouldn't say "the right of the PEOPLE", it would say, "the right of the militia". If libs would simply take the time to read the writings of the Founders at the time, you would understand this. But you don't want to understand this. Also, from a strictly linguistic standpoint, it doesn't require people of be a member of a militia, to keep and bear arms. It's fine if you want to abolish the right, there are provisions to do this, but being totally dishonest about it is idiotic. Just be honest.

https://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

"(1) The sentence does not restrict the right to keep and bear arms, nor does it state or imply possession of the right elsewhere or by others than the people; it simply makes a positive statement with respect to a right of the people."