Disarm the 99% of law-abiding gun owners and see
how that works out.
In news:101t7dm$1qfbh$[email protected], Siri Cruz
<[email protected]> typed:
On 5/6/25 13:38, Roy Ackley wrote:
Disarm the 99% of law-abiding gun owners and see
how that works out.
1950s. When America was still great.
Yessiree, when Sears Roebuck & Co, would send a gun via United States
Postal Service right to your doorstep.
On 5/6/25 13:38, Roy Ackley wrote:
Disarm the 99% of law-abiding gun owners and see
how that works out.
1950s. When America was still great.
Here's the solution. Disarm the 99% of law-abiding gun owners and see
how that works out. While we are at it, make it a felony to lock our
doors, our cars and forget to leave the keys in the ignition. We
wouldn't want to inconvenience the criminals and cause them to become
angry.
Don't forget to vote for Kamala Harris or the next stooge Democrats toss
on the election scrap heap.
On 5/6/25 13:38, Roy Ackley wrote:
Disarm the 99% of law-abiding gun owners and see
how that works out.
1950s. When America was still great.
Here's the solution. Disarm the 99% of law-abiding gun owners and see
how that works out. While we are at it, make it a felony to lock our
doors, our cars and forget to leave the keys in the ignition. We
wouldn't want to inconvenience the criminals and cause them to become >>angry.
Don't forget to vote for Kamala Harris or the next stooge Democrats toss
on the election scrap heap.
That's stupid.
Here's what would actually work: Clarify the second amendment to:
"Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to
keep and bear arms. The federal government will register all gun transactions and the record of these will be in the public domain;
however, gun regulation shall be left entirely to the states.
A
person who buys a gun is responsible for the gun until it is
transferred... or destroyed."
As far as the federal government is concerned, you may have any gun
you please... period.
This would include fully-automatic,
teflon-coated projectiles, and "silencers". Gun regulation is sent
down to the states where it belonges. The gun laws in rural Montana
would be (and should be) different from urban New Jersey.
Here's the solution. Disarm the 99% of law-abiding gun owners and see
how that works out. While we are at it, make it a felony to lock our
doors, our cars and forget to leave the keys in the ignition. We
wouldn't want to inconvenience the criminals and cause them to become
angry.
Don't forget to vote for Kamala Harris or the next stooge Democrats toss
on the election scrap heap.
That's stupid.
Here's what would actually work: Clarify the second amendment to:
"Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to
keep and bear arms. The federal government will register all gun transactions and the record of these will be in the public domain;
however, gun regulation shall be left entirely to the states. A
person who buys a gun is responsible for the gun until it is
transferred... or destroyed."
As far as the federal government is concerned, you may have any gun
you please... period. This would include fully-automatic,
teflon-coated projectiles, and "silencers". Gun regulation is sent
down to the states where it belonges. The gun laws in rural Montana
would be (and should be) different from urban New Jersey.
Whit this, you can't buy a gun and sell it into the secondary market
because 1) it would ce a criminal act and 2) the initial buyer would
be responsible (i.e.: liable) for it.
It's the best of both worlds: any gun you want, but you're responsible
for what you buy.
On 6/5/2025 8:25 PM, !Jones wrote:
So, universal gun registration and a nationwide patchwork of gun laws.Here's the solution. Disarm the 99% of law-abiding gun owners and see
how that works out. While we are at it, make it a felony to lock our
doors, our cars and forget to leave the keys in the ignition. We
wouldn't want to inconvenience the criminals and cause them to become
angry.
Don't forget to vote for Kamala Harris or the next stooge Democrats toss >>> on the election scrap heap.
That's stupid.
Here's what would actually work: Clarify the second amendment to:
"Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to
keep and bear arms. The federal government will register all gun
transactions and the record of these will be in the public domain;
however, gun regulation shall be left entirely to the states. A
person who buys a gun is responsible for the gun until it is
transferred... or destroyed."
As far as the federal government is concerned, you may have any gun
you please... period. This would include fully-automatic,
teflon-coated projectiles, and "silencers". Gun regulation is sent
down to the states where it belonges. The gun laws in rural Montana
would be (and should be) different from urban New Jersey.
Whit this, you can't buy a gun and sell it into the secondary market
because 1) it would ce a criminal act and 2) the initial buyer would
be responsible (i.e.: liable) for it.
It's the best of both worlds: any gun you want, but you're responsible
for what you buy.
That's never going to happen. Here's what would actually work:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
"!Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
Here's the solution. Disarm the 99% of law-abiding gun owners and
see how that works out. While we are at it, make it a felony to lock
our doors, our cars and forget to leave the keys in the ignition. We >>>wouldn't want to inconvenience the criminals and cause them to become >>>angry.
Don't forget to vote for Kamala Harris or the next stooge Democrats
toss on the election scrap heap.
That's stupid.
Here's what would actually work: Clarify the second amendment to:
"Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to
keep and bear arms. The federal government will register all gun
transactions and the record of these will be in the public domain;
Privacy issues would totally prohibit the last part of that. Further
the power to register all gun transactions could be seen as requiring
you to register the newspapers you buy, the books you buy, etc would
again would not only have privacy issues, but the fact it basically
allows the government to monitor/control what you're reading.
however, gun regulation shall be left entirely to the states.
So.. they could immediately restrict the right the people to keep and
bear arms.. totally nullifying the 2nd.
A
person who buys a gun is responsible for the gun until it is
transferred... or destroyed."
As long as you are going to be responsible for your stolen car, knife, hammer, and pretty much any and ever object you may own.
As far as the federal government is concerned, you may have any gun
you please... period.
Sweet, so no bans against AR-15, or a automatic 20mm gun turret?
This would include fully-automatic,
teflon-coated projectiles, and "silencers". Gun regulation is sent
down to the states where it belonges. The gun laws in rural Montana
would be (and should be) different from urban New Jersey.
If it's sent down to the states, then then Constitutional mandate
above becomes pretty worthless unless it applies to the states as well
like all other Constitutional Amendments.
Be honest, this is a perfect example of your sloppy thought process.
"Siri Cruz" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:101t7dm$1qfbh$[email protected]...
On 5/6/25 13:38, Roy Ackley wrote:
Disarm the 99% of law-abiding gun owners and see
how that works out.
1950s. When America was still great.
Hmmmm. 1950s.. walk into a department store, pick out a gun, pay cash,
and walk out.
On 6/6/2025 5:41 AM, scooter, the drunken Virginia camper and gutless chickenshit who is frightened to death of Rudy, trolled and lied:
"!Jones" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
Here's the solution. Disarm the 99% of law-abiding gun owners and
see how that works out. While we are at it, make it a felony to
lock our doors, our cars and forget to leave the keys in the
ignition. We wouldn't want to inconvenience the criminals and cause
them to become angry.
Don't forget to vote for Kamala Harris or the next stooge Democrats
toss on the election scrap heap.
That's stupid.
Here's what would actually work: Clarify the second amendment to:
"Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to
keep and bear arms. The federal government will register all gun
transactions and the record of these will be in the public domain;
Privacy issues would totally prohibit the last part of that.
My side says there is *no* right to privacy, scooter.
On 6/5/2025 8:25 PM, !Jones wrote:
So, universal gun registration and a nationwide patchwork of gun laws.Here's the solution. Disarm the 99% of law-abiding gun owners and see
how that works out. While we are at it, make it a felony to lock our
doors, our cars and forget to leave the keys in the ignition. We
wouldn't want to inconvenience the criminals and cause them to become
angry.
Don't forget to vote for Kamala Harris or the next stooge Democrats toss >>> on the election scrap heap.
That's stupid.
Here's what would actually work: Clarify the second amendment to:
"Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to
keep and bear arms. The federal government will register all gun
transactions and the record of these will be in the public domain;
however, gun regulation shall be left entirely to the states. A
person who buys a gun is responsible for the gun until it is
transferred... or destroyed."
As far as the federal government is concerned, you may have any gun
you please... period. This would include fully-automatic,
teflon-coated projectiles, and "silencers". Gun regulation is sent
down to the states where it belonges. The gun laws in rural Montana
would be (and should be) different from urban New Jersey.
Whit this, you can't buy a gun and sell it into the secondary market
because 1) it would ce a criminal act and 2) the initial buyer would
be responsible (i.e.: liable) for it.
It's the best of both worlds: any gun you want, but you're responsible
for what you buy.
That's never going to happen. Here's what would actually work:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
[Default] !Jones <[email protected]> typed:
The second amendment was
included as a compromise on the question of slavery without explicitly >>mentioning the term.
"Laugh laugh laugh laugh."
-Lee Harrison 1957-2012, RIP
Do yourself a favor and cancel your "Atlantic" subscription.
It's not possible for states to apply equal and fair regulations. >Transporting weapons from one state to another and running afoul of some >ill-thought legislation could land you in jail for a decade.
It has to come from the top down leaving states in the position of >compliance. My take on the whole thing is if the cops can have a
particular weapon, so can I. Othewise 2A becomes biased in favor of the >government, who at times becomes our worst enemy when we don't pay
attention to it.
[Default] !Jones <[email protected]> typed:
The second amendment was
included as a compromise on the question of slavery without explicitly >>mentioning the term.
"Laugh laugh laugh laugh."
-Lee Harrison 1957-2012, RIP
Do yourself a favor and cancel your "Atlantic" subscription.
On 6/5/2025 8:25 PM, !Jones wrote:
So, universal gun registration and a nationwide patchwork of gun laws.Here's the solution. Disarm the 99% of law-abiding gun owners and see >>>> how that works out. While we are at it, make it a felony to lock our
doors, our cars and forget to leave the keys in the ignition. We
wouldn't want to inconvenience the criminals and cause them to become
angry.
Don't forget to vote for Kamala Harris or the next stooge Democrats toss >>>> on the election scrap heap.
That's stupid.
Here's what would actually work: Clarify the second amendment to:
"Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to
keep and bear arms. The federal government will register all gun
transactions and the record of these will be in the public domain;
however, gun regulation shall be left entirely to the states. A
person who buys a gun is responsible for the gun until it is
transferred... or destroyed."
As far as the federal government is concerned, you may have any gun
you please... period. This would include fully-automatic,
teflon-coated projectiles, and "silencers". Gun regulation is sent
down to the states where it belonges. The gun laws in rural Montana
would be (and should be) different from urban New Jersey.
Whit this, you can't buy a gun and sell it into the secondary market
because 1) it would ce a criminal act and 2) the initial buyer would
be responsible (i.e.: liable) for it.
It's the best of both worlds: any gun you want, but you're responsible
for what you buy.
That's never going to happen. Here's what would actually work:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Gun registration works quite well in societies where rule by law is
respected (Switzerland is a good example; there are myriad others)...
the US has never been a particularly law-abiding nation, though. I
agree that it probably won't happen because it uses the wrong
"R-word": instead of *rights*, it focuses on *responsibility* and the
gun crowd will never accept that idea.
BTW, you're misquoting the second amendment by omission. The quote
should be 27 words; truncating it to the 14 words you *like* misses
the point. That's not an introductory clause, sir... in fact, it
isn't a *clause* at all; it's an integral noun phrase absolutely
necessary to the correct interpretation of the sentence's subject. Mr Madison's topic was the state militias. The second amendment was
included as a compromise on the question of slavery without explicitly mentioning the term. If you read the Richmond ratification debates
(you *do* read, don't you?), you see that the dominant topic was, by
far and away, slavery; guns were never even mentioned.
It's not possible for states to apply equal and fair regulations.
Transporting weapons from one state to another and running afoul of some
ill-thought legislation could land you in jail for a decade.
Obviously, the gun laws would change at the state lines; however, this
is true of any regulated activity when crossing a state line...
interstate trucking, for example. When you drive across a state line,
you're expected to be cognizant of the motor vehicle laws of the
state[s] into which you travel. What's different about expecting you
to know the gun laws therein?
It has to come from the top down leaving states in the position of
compliance. My take on the whole thing is if the cops can have a
particular weapon, so can I. Othewise 2A becomes biased in favor of the
government, who at times becomes our worst enemy when we don't pay
attention to it.
I'm not sure why a state can't enact a perfectly valid set of laws
respecting acceptable gun behavior within that state. I would suggest
that the states are in a *far* better position to articulate that than
a one-size-fits-all approach dictated from D.C. Remember that the
states created the federal government, not visa versa. It this case,
the fed simply reports the gun sale to the state.
Here's the solution
On 6/6/2025 12:14 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <[email protected]>, sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut, lied:
On 6/5/2025 8:25 PM, !Jones wrote:
So, universal gun registration and a nationwide patchwork of gun laws.Here's the solution. Disarm the 99% of law-abiding gun owners and see >>>> how that works out. While we are at it, make it a felony to lock our
doors, our cars and forget to leave the keys in the ignition. We
wouldn't want to inconvenience the criminals and cause them to become
angry.
Don't forget to vote for Kamala Harris or the next stooge Democrats
toss
on the election scrap heap.
That's stupid.
Here's what would actually work: Clarify the second amendment to:
"Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to
keep and bear arms. The federal government will register all gun
transactions and the record of these will be in the public domain;
however, gun regulation shall be left entirely to the states. A
person who buys a gun is responsible for the gun until it is
transferred... or destroyed."
As far as the federal government is concerned, you may have any gun
you please... period. This would include fully-automatic,
teflon-coated projectiles, and "silencers". Gun regulation is sent
down to the states where it belonges. The gun laws in rural Montana
would be (and should be) different from urban New Jersey.
Whit this, you can't buy a gun and sell it into the secondary market
because 1) it would ce a criminal act and 2) the initial buyer would
be responsible (i.e.: liable) for it.
It's the best of both worlds: any gun you want, but you're responsible
for what you buy.
That's never going to happen. Here's what would actually work:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
It isn't being infringed, Francis, you fucking dope. You don't have a
right to just whatever guns you may want. We've been through this numerous times already, Francis.
On 6/7/2025 7:34 AM, !Jones wrote:
I misquoted nothing. I propose amending 2A by eliminatingOn 6/5/2025 8:25 PM, !Jones wrote:
So, universal gun registration and a nationwide patchwork of gunHere's the solution. Disarm the 99% of law-abiding gun owners and
see how that works out. While we are at it, make it a felony to
lock our doors, our cars and forget to leave the keys in the
ignition. We wouldn't want to inconvenience the criminals and
cause them to become angry.
Don't forget to vote for Kamala Harris or the next stooge
Democrats toss on the election scrap heap.
That's stupid.
Here's what would actually work: Clarify the second amendment to:
"Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to
keep and bear arms. The federal government will register all gun
transactions and the record of these will be in the public domain;
however, gun regulation shall be left entirely to the states. A
person who buys a gun is responsible for the gun until it is
transferred... or destroyed."
As far as the federal government is concerned, you may have any gun
you please... period. This would include fully-automatic,
teflon-coated projectiles, and "silencers". Gun regulation is sent
down to the states where it belonges. The gun laws in rural
Montana would be (and should be) different from urban New Jersey.
Whit this, you can't buy a gun and sell it into the secondary
market because 1) it would ce a criminal act and 2) the initial
buyer would be responsible (i.e.: liable) for it.
It's the best of both worlds: any gun you want, but you're
responsible for what you buy.
laws. That's never going to happen. Here's what would actually
work: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
Gun registration works quite well in societies where rule by law is
respected (Switzerland is a good example; there are myriad others)...
the US has never been a particularly law-abiding nation, though. I
agree that it probably won't happen because it uses the wrong
"R-word": instead of *rights*, it focuses on *responsibility* and the
gun crowd will never accept that idea.
BTW, you're misquoting the second amendment by omission. The quote
should be 27 words; truncating it to the 14 words you *like* misses
the point. That's not an introductory clause, sir... in fact, it
isn't a *clause* at all; it's an integral noun phrase absolutely
necessary to the correct interpretation of the sentence's subject.
Mr Madison's topic was the state militias. The second amendment was
included as a compromise on the question of slavery without
explicitly mentioning the term. If you read the Richmond
ratification debates (you *do* read, don't you?), you see that the
dominant topic was, by far and away, slavery; guns were never even
mentioned.
those words. There are a myriad statements by the founding
fathers affirming an individual right to bear arms, and
recent SCOTUS decisions to the same effect.
"Lou Bricano" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:OdI0Q.163672$[email protected]...
On 6/6/2025 12:14 PM, Francis Mark Hansen <[email protected]>,
sleazy rent-skip chaser, possible polygamist and irrational gun nut,
lied:
On 6/5/2025 8:25 PM, !Jones wrote:
So, universal gun registration and a nationwide patchwork of gunHere's the solution. Disarm the 99% of law-abiding gun owners and
see how that works out. While we are at it, make it a felony to
lock our doors, our cars and forget to leave the keys in the
ignition. We wouldn't want to inconvenience the criminals and
cause them to become angry.
Don't forget to vote for Kamala Harris or the next stooge
Democrats toss
on the election scrap heap.
That's stupid.
Here's what would actually work: Clarify the second amendment to:
"Congress shall make no law restricting the right of the people to
keep and bear arms. The federal government will register all gun
transactions and the record of these will be in the public domain;
however, gun regulation shall be left entirely to the states. A
person who buys a gun is responsible for the gun until it is
transferred... or destroyed."
As far as the federal government is concerned, you may have any gun
you please... period. This would include fully-automatic,
teflon-coated projectiles, and "silencers". Gun regulation is sent
down to the states where it belonges. The gun laws in rural
Montana would be (and should be) different from urban New Jersey.
Whit this, you can't buy a gun and sell it into the secondary
market because 1) it would ce a criminal act and 2) the initial
buyer would be responsible (i.e.: liable) for it.
It's the best of both worlds: any gun you want, but you're
responsible for what you buy.
laws. That's never going to happen. Here's what would actually
work: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed."
It isn't being infringed, Francis, you fucking dope. You don't have a
right to just whatever guns you may want. We've been through this
numerous times already, Francis.
It isn't being infringed, Rudy, you fucking dope. You don't have a
right to just whatever newspaper you may want.
It isn't being infringed, Rudy, you fucking dope. You don't have a
right to just say whatever you may want.
It isn't being infringed, Rudy, you fucking dope, You don't have a
right to just vote whatever way you may want.
Does raise a question, given you have just asserted there are no
rights.. what freedom actually exists according to you?
Oh, but that's right, Rudy doesn't believe in freedom.. he has to be
told what to do, He loves being told what to do.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 32:12:04 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,294 |