Congratulations Obama on more guns in...

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#22 Jan 11, 2013
humbug wrote:
<quoted text>tell it to Waco and Ruby Ridge...
What about it?

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#23 Jan 11, 2013
jack wrote:
<quoted text>Yeah because we never have any fights in this country.... And when we do have fights nobody ever uses a gun.....
You haven't seen tyranny in full force in this country. Yet.
O Fan

Salem, MO

#24 Jan 11, 2013
killa_the_compassionate wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't seen tyranny in full force in this country. Yet.
And we won't comrade Killa unless traitors like you keep it up. Why don't you go back to whatever anti American country you come from. You advocate the forced overthrow of the legitimately elected government daily. We need
to watch you carefully you are a menace to our freedom.

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#25 Jan 11, 2013
O Fan wrote:
<quoted text>And we won't comrade Killa unless traitors like you keep it up. Why don't you go back to whatever anti American country you come from. You advocate the forced overthrow of the legitimately elected government daily. We need
to watch you carefully you are a menace to our freedom.
I have done no such thing.
O Fan

Salem, MO

#26 Jan 11, 2013
killa_the_compassionate wrote:
<quoted text>
I have done no such thing.
Traitor and anarchist.
Sniper

Warrensburg, MO

#27 Jan 11, 2013
jack

United States

#28 Jan 11, 2013
killa_the_compassionate wrote:
<quoted text>
You haven't seen tyranny in full force in this country. Yet.
This is a disturbing comment. I have forwarded this to the proper authorities.
Sandy

Union, MO

#29 Jan 11, 2013
Why do right wing extremist equate assault weapon regulations or military style weapons regulations with a complete banishment of 2nd amendment rights?
I don't get it. When a whacko tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb we had to take off our shoes at the airport,when a whacko blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City they regulated fertilizer.
But if a sick bastard takes out 20 first graders we defend his rights? WTF America!!!
I honestly believe teabaggers are as F_CKED UP in the head as that Sandy Hook nut!

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#30 Jan 11, 2013
jack wrote:
<quoted text>This is a disturbing comment. I have forwarded this to the proper authorities.
You are going to warn them of their tyranny? Lol

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#31 Jan 11, 2013
Sandy wrote:
Why do right wing extremist equate assault weapon regulations or military style weapons regulations with a complete banishment of 2nd amendment rights?
I don't get it. When a whacko tried to blow up a plane with a shoe bomb we had to take off our shoes at the airport,when a whacko blew up the federal building in Oklahoma City they regulated fertilizer.
But if a sick bastard takes out 20 first graders we defend his rights? WTF America!!!
I honestly believe teabaggers are as F_CKED UP in the head as that Sandy Hook nut!
You misunderstand if that's what you believe. It's a partial banishment. But the amendment is pretty clear...

"The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."

Why are left-wing wackos incapable of reading?
Sandy

Union, MO

#32 Jan 11, 2013
killa_the_compassionate wrote:
<quoted text>
You misunderstand if that's what you believe. It's a partial banishment. But the amendment is pretty clear...
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
Why are left-wing wackos incapable of reading?
Do you own an RPG? NO? WHY IS THAT?
joe

United States

#33 Jan 11, 2013
The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Yet everyone accepts that there can be laws against hate speech or harrasding speech or yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. the second amendment is no different. It also is subject to some limitations. Fire example private citizens can't own grenades or atomic bombs. Killa - I suppose you think atom bombs should be available fire sake? After all the second amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
joe

United States

#34 Jan 11, 2013
joe wrote:
The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Yet everyone accepts that there can be laws against hate speech or harrasding speech or yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. the second amendment is no different. It also is subject to some limitations. Fire example private citizens can't own grenades or atomic bombs. Killa - I suppose you think atom bombs should be available fire sake? After all the second amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Not just that. But of you believe there are no exceptions then there could be no laws prohibiting felons from possessing firearms or mentally ill people. Add usual killa's logic fails the simplest surface test.

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#35 Jan 11, 2013
joe wrote:
The first amendment says "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Yet everyone accepts that there can be laws against hate speech or harrasding speech or yelling fire in a crowded theater, etc. the second amendment is no different. It also is subject to some limitations. Fire example private citizens can't own grenades or atomic bombs. Killa - I suppose you think atom bombs should be available fire sake? After all the second amendment says the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
Your absolutely right. And it's an abomination. That amendment is pretty clear as well. In contract law, you don't ignore what you don't like. You amend the contract.

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#36 Jan 11, 2013
Sandy wrote:
<quoted text>Do you own an RPG? NO? WHY IS THAT?
There is ambiguity that needs to be addressed. Original intent would tell us that an RPG is not a weapon of self-defense and therefor should probably not be covered by the second amendment. Ideally, we would amend the Constitution so there is no ambiguity where that line is drawn. In the mean time, we leave that line up to the Supreme Court. I would draw that line after semi-automatic weapons and before automatic weapons. Your line may be different. But without an amendment, it's a debate.

The debate is not do we disarm citizens? The second amendment clearly states how this country addresses that issue.
Sandy

Union, MO

#37 Jan 11, 2013
killa_the_compassionate wrote:
<quoted text>
There is ambiguity that needs to be addressed. Original intent would tell us that an RPG is not a weapon of self-defense and therefor should probably not be covered by the second amendment. Ideally, we would amend the Constitution so there is no ambiguity where that line is drawn. In the mean time, we leave that line up to the Supreme Court. I would draw that line after semi-automatic weapons and before automatic weapons. Your line may be different. But without an amendment, it's a debate.
The debate is not do we disarm citizens? The second amendment clearly states how this country addresses that issue.
Looks like you just disagreed with yourself.

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#38 Jan 11, 2013
Sandy wrote:
<quoted text>Looks like you just disagreed with yourself.
Nah, just paralleling his extremist statement that denying some weapons equals a complete banishment of the second amendment.

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#41 Jan 12, 2013
It seems pretty clear that the Second Amendment stops where self-defense stops since that was the purpose. If I have an intruder coming into my house, I don't want to have to stop to reload. Nor does the amendment read anything about creating a convenient disarmament registration list.

The debate isn't before semi-automatic weapons. It's whether automatic weapons should be covered. I would be on the no side. But it wouldn't hurt my feelings if automatics were allowed. And those who are for automatic weapons certainly have justification.
Killa the Constipated

Salem, MO

#42 Jan 12, 2013
killa_the_compassionate wrote:
It seems pretty clear that the Second Amendment stops where self-defense stops since that was the purpose. If I have an intruder coming into my house, I don't want to have to stop to reload. Nor does the amendment read anything about creating a convenient disarmament registration list.
The debate isn't before semi-automatic weapons. It's whether automatic weapons should be
covered. I would be on the no side. But it wouldn't hurt my feelings if automatics were allowed. And those who are for automatic weapons certainly have justification.
If you have intruders and need more than 10 rounds, you are more dangerous than the intruders. The issue is not with semi autos it is with high capacity magazines. What is a sensible number,10 or 12? Maybe but more than that is nonsense. Background checks etc are a part of the solution. People quote the high number of gun deaths in Chicago when there are such strict gun laws. Until background checks are done at St Louis gun shows, people will still load up their cars, travel to Chicago and make huge profits selling them out of their trunk.

“I'm right”

Since: Oct 12

Rolla, MO

#44 Jan 12, 2013
Killa the Constipated wrote:
<quoted text>If you have intruders and need more than 10 rounds, you are more dangerous than the intruders. The issue is not with semi autos it is with high capacity magazines. What is a sensible number,10 or 12? Maybe but more than that is nonsense. Background checks etc are a part of the solution. People quote the high number of gun deaths in Chicago when there are such strict gun laws. Until background checks are done at St Louis gun shows, people will still load up their cars, travel to Chicago and make huge profits selling them out of their trunk.
If you are a crappy shot, 10 may not be enough. There may be more than one guy. It may take multiple bullets to put an intruder down. Imagine 4 guys attack you. You don't get a lot of misses if you only have 10 shots. If they are shooting at you, chances are some of that fire will be cover fire to keep them from advancing on you.

The Constitution is clear. If we are going to err, it should be on the too much fire power side.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Rolla Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
Lacey Sbabo 5 hr Davy 3
Beth Miles 5 hr Weird 3
watkins remodel 6 hr Weird 47
teacher 6 hr Grow up 6
anytime fitness (Feb '12) 6 hr Grow up 59
Chris Crawford (crawdad) 6 hr Grow up 8
jamie dodson skinny girl drives black dodge wit... (Apr '13) 6 hr Matt 20

Rolla Jobs

More from around the web

Personal Finance

Rolla Mortgages