Off topic re: repeal the 2nd amendment

[aboutime]

Personally, I believe we are better served to get ahead of the curve. In business who waits until their competition determines their future? Screw that, we get ahead now and propose SENSIBLE gun control coupled with ironclad guarantees and WE set the tone.


By the way, who calls a post dumb then thanks another for agreeing with that same post? LOL

Do you mean. When we all agree that YOUR posts are dumb?

Isn't that what you demand from everyone else. Agreement with you?

[aboutime]

and traditionally democracies turn into monarchies unless the average citizen is allowed to keep his ak47 to battle their tanks.




talk about guillable , you heard rush limbaugh say that Obama wants to be a dictator and you shit all over yourself on your way to the gun store.

Now we have Smellaforum? The only member who is capable, ready, willing and able to shit all over himself. Just spoke those words above.

And we were told he was leaving....dung.jpg his mark.

[ConHog]

glockmail. How easy it is to identify a Liberal in Denial. Look at how he refers to Rush. Too bad his liberalism got in the way, and exposed the idiocy of his ways.

Ignoring someone doesn't mean switching from admitting you can't debate them on the topic and instead only issuing insults directly to admitting that you can't debate them on a topic and issuing insults to them via another poster.

[LadyGunSlinger]

now , before anyone goes crazy - on either side - here it out.

The 2nd simply isn't adequate for the times. Not in protecting our right to own guns and not in protecting us from unlawful gun use.

We need a new amendment which does just that. I question how ANY gun control law can be ruled constitutional when the 2nd in fact says " can NOT be infringed" accepting of course that the court has ruled that the states are bound the by the 2nd as well. Which I'm not sure I agree with that either, but more on that later.

At the same, any sane person can recognize that there does need to be some form of checks allowed so that the government can provide for the safety of people. I know I know many argue that it is a person's own responsibility to protect themselves , and that is true - as far as it goes . In reality the government is also constitutionally bound to provide for the security of her citizens.

I propose that a new amendment be written that clearly identifies what we may own, and under what circumstances. The whole bit about militias and such can just be thrown out the window. We need no written reason to exercise our right to own firearms. Does the first supply a reason for needing the right to free speech? No, it simply states that we have that right.

As far as what we may own. We should be able to own anything up to and including what the Army defies as an assault rifle. That would include fully automatic weapons that utilize an intermediate sized ammunition. Sorry guys, no Ma Deuces.

The government on the other hand ought be able to set certain conditions and levy taxes on such weapons, and yes keep track of them. But not in the way you might think.

Every weapon should have to be registered with the local police department, such registration should include a photo of the gun, the serial number, and a bullet sample for forensic matching if necessary.

This information should be placed in a database that is available to police departments around the world .

A separate database should contain the fingerprints , picture, and identity of the registered owner of each weapon. THIS database should ONLY be accessible via a warrant obtained by probable cause . Meaning no one will EVER get access to your personal data unless one of your guns is used to commit a crime and police somewhere have enough evidence to prove specific weapon was used and get a warrant to track it back to the owner.

The penalties for using a gun in the commission of a crime should be draconian in nature, and doubly so if it as unregistered weapon or one registered to someone other than yourself.

Right of ownership of a gun should not be conferred until a person reaches age 21.

States and cities SHOULD have the right to set their own laws regarding gun ownership and carry laws. If a city wishes to make guns illegal, that is their right. If you don't like it, move. That is your right.

This includes doing away with gun free zones if states wish, except of course on federal property located within the state.

Felons are absolutely , positively forbidden to own weapons and the penalty for having one should again be draconian.

NO federal law, executive order, or other federal edict shall be allowed to dictate what a state may do in regards to firearms within their borders except in the case of federal property within those borders.

The federal government retains the right to control the interstate trade of guns and may make laws pertaining to such which supersede any state laws to the contrary.












boo and hiss away lol

This has to be one of the worst outlines for repealing the second amendment I've ever had the displeasure to read. LOL This Bozo thinks the 2nd amendment should "clearly outline" what we may own??? This isn't a Dictatorship dummy. The Founders intent is clear and has been upheld throughout our history. I would suggest if you want to stifle freedom you take your Fascist loving ass to China. You'd fit in well there. Don't thank me.. Free advice.

[ConHog]

This has to be one of the worst outlines for repealing the second amendment I've ever had the displeasure to read. LOL This Bozo thinks the 2nd amendment should "clearly outline" what we may own??? This isn't a Dictatorship dummy. The Founders intent is clear and has been upheld throughout our history. I would suggest if you want to stifle freedom you take your Fascist loving ass to China. You'd fit in well there. Don't thank me.. Free advice.

What an excellent , well thought out, well presented retort.


Would read again.

[LadyGunSlinger]

What an excellent , well thought out, well presented retort.


Would read again.

I don't need to read it again. It's stupidity at its finest. You either stand for liberty or not. Your dismissal of the Bill of Rights is duly noted.

[ConHog]

I don't need to read it again. It's stupidity at its finest. You either stand for liberty or not. Your dismissal of the Bill of Rights is duly noted.

I didn't ask you to read my post again.

[LadyGunSlinger]

I didn't ask you to read my post again.

"Would read again," means what then? You're not very bright, are you?

[ConHog]

"Would read again," means what then? You're not very bright, are you?

Please stay on topic, but you misread if you think I was asking you to reread my post LOL

[LadyGunSlinger]

Please stay on topic, but you misread if you think I was asking you to reread my post LOL

I haven't veered off topic- simply responding to your bullshit. You're the one who threw out some stupid comment about reading it again then came back to deny your own words. You're either delusional or seriously mental.. Perhaps a bit of both. Now if you care to debate me on the merits of your propaganda thesis, have at it and stop the whining.

[ConHog]

I haven't veered off topic- simply responding to your bullshit. You're the one who threw out some stupid comment about reading it again then came back to deny your own words. You're either delusional or seriously mental.. Perhaps a bit of both. Now if you care to debate me on the merits of your propaganda thesis, have at it and stop the whining.

fine since you insist. I didn't want to embarrass you , but you won't let it go.

Read the ENTIRE quote and I was clearly talking about your post and sarcastically saying I would read it again.

[LadyGunSlinger]

fine since you insist. I didn't want to embarrass you , but you won't let it go.

Read the ENTIRE quote and I was clearly talking about your post and sarcastically saying I would read it again.

I'm not a mind reader nor is it my job to guess your intent. Make yourself clear or STFU.

[ConHog]

I'm not a mind reader nor is it my job to guess your intent. Make yourself clear or STFU.

I was clear , you misread. End of story. Now that we have determined that do you have anything more to add to the thread other than "your idea is stupid?"

If not then we're done here, because this line of discussion is no longer up for debate.

[LadyGunSlinger]

I was clear , you misread. End of story. Now that we have determined that do you have anything more to add to the thread other than "your idea is stupid?"

If not then we're done here, because this line of discussion is no longer up for debate.

Too bad you don't dictate responses on this forum. As for your, "I was clear" defense?

Cornholio's post:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...497#post611497


Would read again did not contain quotation marks, an ie.. anything other than this moron's three words. WOULD READ AGAIN -- and yet here you are arguing over your own post. LOL


OMG, you can't make this shit up..

[logroller]

Cornholio's post:
http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthre...497#post611497


Would read again did not contain quotation marks, an ie.. anything other than this moron's three words. WOULD READ AGAIN -- and yet here you are arguing over your own post. LOL


OMG, you can't make this shit up..

Oh dear Lord; lighten up Francis. (You want to debate or bicker? I'm game for a debate; but if flaming is your intent, there's a forum for that here-- the cage.
as for the would read again comment, its a common expression in reviews from Internet marketplaces-- where people comment on be transaction with things like, " great product, would buy again" obviously, you didn't get it was sarcasm; that's fine. But your misunderstanding isn't his fault. Get a grip.
PS-- lighten up Francis is a reference from a movie; not you personally.