Should handguns be illegal?

TurtleDude said:

You clearly are as unknowledgeable about the term INFRINGE as you are of the laws. what do you think the second amendment is about?

Click to expand...

Instead of playing your child's game.....

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The simlpe fact is that denying you access to automatic weapons does deny your ability to purchase and own guns. Your extremism is as tired as Pelosi's.

TurtleDude said:

for those who have no clue what the hughes amendment is (including MSgt) it was a poison pill added improperly to a firearms owner protection act by a congressman who wanted to derail a law that was going to pass. Even though there was basically ZERO cases of legally owned machine guns being used in crime, the amendment banned registration of any machine gun made after May 19, 1986 meaning only law enforcement agencies and the military, along with some Title II makers and class III dealers could own any such weapon made after May 19, 1986-such firearms could not be "registered" for the purpose of civilian ownersihp.

Click to expand...

Well, the big difference between the military and law enforcement from the average civilian is training. You see, you have already scoffed at the idea of responsibility. You do it again here by insisting to own certain weapons without any sense of proper ownership. You relate yourself, who does not conduct annual training for any weapon, to the military, which requires annual training and qualifications. But, like the typical civilian, you breathe, therefore you rate.

Again, anybody that needs an automatic weapon to hit a target doesn't need to own a wepon at all. But tell you what...go to a gun store and purchase a handgun. When you have in your house without a safe think about how you have lost your rights. Find something to actually complain about.

Should cars, that are involved in most vehicle deaths and injuries, be banned? Just as "public transportation" is not an option in many parts of the country, public security is lacking as well. To take away the easiest means of private self defense (from only the law abiding) is as insane as removing the easiest means of private transportation.

MSgt said:

Well, the big difference between the military and law enforcement from the average civilian is training. You see, you have already scoffed at the idea of responsibility. You do it again here by insisting to own certain weapons without any sense of proper ownership. You relate yourself, who does not conduct annual training for any weapon, to the military, which requires annual training and qualifications. But, like the typical civilian, you breathe, therefore you rate.

Again, anybody that needs an automatic weapon to hit a target doesn't need to own a wepon at all. But tell you what...go to a gun store and purchase a handgun. When you have in your house without a safe think about how you have lost your rights. Find something to actually complain about.

Click to expand...

your silly argument is that "responsibility" means supporting bans no matter how well a potential owner is trained. I can outshoot 95% of the people in the military. That's why the US Army Marksmanship Unit-Fort Benning, US Army Shooting team asked me to join. Target shooting HAS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO DO WITH THE SECOND AMNDMENT

you have no clue about this issue

MSgt said:

Instead of playing your child's game.....

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The simlpe fact is that denying you access to automatic weapons does deny your ability to purchase and own guns. Your extremism is as tired as Pelosi's.

Click to expand...

we have another poster who claims that your rights are intact if you can just own ONE gun. That is as silly now as it was when he made the claim

tell us-given you took an oath (as I have TWICE) to uphold the constitution etc what do you think the Second amendment means
don't cite some book-I want you to tell us what it means

MSgt said:

Instead of playing your child's game.....

Second Amendment to the United States Constitution - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.

The simlpe [sic] fact is that denying you access to automatic weapons does deny your ability to purchase and own guns. Your extremism is as tired as Pelosi's.

Click to expand...

A law prohibiting you from being a Methodist would similarly not infringe, then, on your freedom of religion, as there are plenty of other religions you can choose from if you're not allowed the one you'd most prefer.

Bob Blaylock said:

A law prohibiting you from being a Methodist would similarly not infringe, then, on your freedom of religion, as there are plenty of other religions you can choose from if you're not allowed the one you'd most prefer.

Click to expand...

the real oozing idiocy is claiming that TRAINING is the issue and yet he supports blanket bans. He also assumes that cops are better trained than civilians who seek to own Class III weapons. That is one of the funniest bits of disinformation I have ever seen.

true story. My son was taking a break at the biggest public range (for 37 years the only public indoor range) in Greater Cincinnati. He was wearing a "blade tech" open holster, 5 Chip McCormick "limited ten" magazines and a Les Baer Premier II USPSA 45 ACP that is worth about 1800 dollars. My son is a small 15 year old-looks more like 12-13. As he walked by the crowded gun counter, a customer said to the head gun sales clerk-what's that little kid doing with a 45? the clerk said-that little kid can outshoot anyone in the store except for his father-and he's getting close to his dad. So another guy said-what about the three cops practicing on the range. The clerk just laughed and said, he could draw and shoot them three times each before they could get their guns off safe

indeed, the cops were asking junior how he got so fast

and yet He probably won't even make Class B in USPSA for another two years.

MSgt said:

Well, the big difference between the military and law enforcement from the average civilian is training. You see, you have already scoffed at the idea of responsibility. You do it again here by insisting to own certain weapons without any sense of proper ownership. You relate yourself, who does not conduct annual training for any weapon, to the military, which requires annual training and qualifications. But, like the typical civilian, you breathe, therefore you rate.

Again, anybody that needs an automatic weapon to hit a target doesn't need to own a wepon at all. But tell you what...go to a gun store and purchase a handgun. When you have in your house without a safe think about how you have lost your rights. Find something to actually complain about.

Click to expand...

Last time I read the 2nd Amendment there was no limitations in how many or what type of guns a person is allowed to have. The 2nd Amendment restricts the government from making any laws on guns. That was the whole point of the BoR's. To restrict the government from making laws against things that were considered inherent natural rights.

Now if the 2nd Amendment restricts the government from making laws on guns then how in the world is a ban of a gun, any gun, NOT a violation of the 2nd Amendment? How can the government make a law banning a gun when they are forbidden to make ANY such laws?

MSgt said:

The fact that people have proven that they don't respect their weapons or their rights to own one is exactly government is stepping in to force it. You can't drive away from a hospital with a newborn without showing a car seat. You can't get a dirver's license without taking a test. You can't drive away with a new car without proof of insurance. buy guns? An 18th birthday is all that is needed. Blame people, not the government.

Click to expand...

So because of criminals all innocents should be punished? THAT is a moronic arguement.

BTW, Driving on public roads is a priviledge, not a right. As such the government has the power to say who can and cannot drive on those roads and state what needs to be done to drive on those roads. Owning a gun is a right. The government has no legal power over guns.