New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

* To Protect and Serve*

llovejim

Current Champion
Because you want to disarm everyone else too so you won't be as afraid of strangers.

Now tell me again how having a gun is the same as having a nuke. :)
hilarious....so she has an assault weapon in her arms...big freaking deal...somebody walking by her could sucker punch her and take that weapon and shove it up her ass before she could have any thoughts or prayers. she looks like a freaking moron....
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
hilarious....so she has an assault weapon in her arms...big freaking deal...somebody walking by her could sucker punch her and take that weapon and shove it up her ass before she could have any thoughts or prayers. she looks like a freaking moron....
Just like they could do to a cop. What's your point?...aside from conflating nukes and personal weapons I mean.....or seeking to disarm private citizens for their own good?
 

llovejim

Current Champion
Gotcha, we're discussing your fantasy world where gun laws work. What you're advocating is that nuts have guns while the rest of us don't.

Here's the thing, criminals don't follow laws. Pretty devious, isn't it?

BTW, the second allows you to defend yourself with a gun, it doesn't mandate you carry a gun. Learn something new every day, don't you, Jim?
no shit!! but what are you bunch of untrained loons going to do to lower the crime rate by carrying a gun in public? drop them at burger king and wound some kid flipping burgers? most guns are not used to do good things...period. even if the intent is good, when people are shooting in a crowded place, the bystanders are about as likely to get hit as the bad guys. well-trained cops in shootouts have incredibly low accuracy rates- something like 1 out of 10. imagine a trump voter trying to shoot somebody while in a panic mode!! if he didn't shoot himself first he would probably take out 10 innocent bystanders when he whipped out his assault weapon and shot his 30 round clip in about 20 seconds. you guys are so ridiculous. all the stats, all the facts, and you still cling to your precious guns as if that is the answer to everything.... have a gun...keep it in your house. hunt with it. protect your house like John Wayne in a coonskin cap at the Alamo..just don't bring it with you out in public like a dumbass.
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
most guns are not used to do good things...period
Another factually challenged claim, Jimbo. Actually, a tiny fraction of a percent of guns are ever used in a crime. That while millions are used for self defense every day. It sounded good though, even if you were wrong


even if the intent is good, when people are shooting in a crowded place, the bystanders are about as likely to get hit as the bad guys. well-trained cops in shootouts have incredibly low accuracy rates- something like 1 out of 10
Well, the scenario you're referring to is where someone opens fire in a crowded area and is shooting people intentionally one after the other. So seriously, you think it's better to let them keep doing that because there might be an accidental shooting trying to stop someone who's shooting as many people as he can? LOL, what a load.

And just that someone is shooting at him will slow him down


imagine a trump voter...
Just can't get past your political bigotry, can you Jim? All roads lead to Rome
 

OldTrapper

Council Member
People with gun permits commit crimes at lower rates than cops.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler

John Adams: Facts are stubborn things
And truth is even harder to find. Did you know that States with no death penalty have lower homicide rates?

https://deathpenaltyinfo.org/deterrence-states-without-death-penalty-have-had-consistently-lower-murder-rates

States with easy to obtain CCW have higher homicide rates:

https://www.ricagv.org/concealed-carry/higher-murder-rates-states-easy-concealed-carry-laws/
 

Fins

Fray Terror
of course it is, stupid. it is not to just investigate. if it was just an investigative agency why do they carry guns and get training in martial arts and gun proficiency? how many people investigating a crime are facing danger, stupid? who needs a gun to ask questions after the crime is investigated? cops who see a broken window or an open door in a business after hours go in with their guns drawn, TO INVESTIGATE OR TO STOP A CRIME? are you insane? good god, ass. the supreme court does not mandate policy or everyday functions of every person or agency in this country, that is what that decision meant, you clown. it is their duty to protect citizens. period. not a constitutional mandate!! it is the duty of soldiers to follow lawful orders, but it is not a constitutional mandate. you are so [Unwelcome language removed] stupid it hurts to read your shit.
Wow, you’ve turned into a babbling puddle of goo. Slow down Jimmy and try to make sense this time.
 

Fins

Fray Terror
if you actually read the Second Amendment, it clearly states this first-

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,

If you know anything about legal terms and legal writing, whatever is stated first in any decree is considered the most important, and that which follows, secondary...obviously. What the Founding Fathers clearly wrote is that because this nation, without a large standing army, needs a well-regulated militia force, in order to protect ourselves from hostile forces, a deterrent force, and it is necessary to our security for such a force to exist...AND THE REST OF THE AMENDMENT- the right of the people (in these well-regulated militias so necessary to our security) to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. IT SAYS ABSOLUTELY NOTHING ABOUT CITIZENS HAVING THE RIGHT TO OWN..OWN..AND BEAR ARMS.

Makes sense. That is the same as saying soldiers should be able to keep and bear arms. Or even police. Anyone in a well regulated militia or well organized force that is necessary to the security of the state. See how it does not even state "own" arms, just "keep." And notice how it says arms, not guns. Arms means every type of weapon that can be used in war...BUT WHO BELIEVES AMERICAN CITIZENS HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN SHOULDER FIRED GROUND TO AIR MISSILES AND ROCKET LAUNCHERS? using your bizarre reading of the Second Amendment, why would those weapons be outlawed? or land mines? or bazookas?
At the time the constitution was written, the armed populace was the militia, Stupid. Do some research
 

Fins

Fray Terror
I would not disagree with "open carry" as long as the Second is looked upon the original intent of the Founders, the Militia. Thu, I would require two years mandatory service for all able bodied men, and an elimination of unjust wars that have nothing to do with the defense of the country (Iraq, Iran, Syria, etc.) This antagonizing of the rest of the world solely for the sake of the "military industrial complex" must end.
I’m not a huge fan of open carry. Open carry makes ignorant people nervous. Concealed carry makes much better sense.
 

OldTrapper

Council Member
Yes, the founders were terrified that the government would take away its own guns. So they put in the ... Bill of Rights ... that government has a right to guns, they can't take that way from themselves.

The government being armed was very important to the founders. They were terrified of the people. They knew government needed to be protected. You're making a lot of sense.
It was the country, not the government, they wished to protect. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about a "standing army", or the government owning guns. It is all about the citizen being the government.

Considering the condition of the world today it may be right to have a permanent standing Army. But then what becomes of the necessity for a Militia? And with that the right to own guns?
 

Fins

Fray Terror
Yeah. It is always better to not know who has a gun, and can kill you.
Do the smart thing and assume everyone is a threat. Makes more sense than walking around paranoid every time you see a law abiding citizen exercising their rights.
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
And truth is even harder to find. Did you know that States with no death penalty have lower homicide rates?
No, but I'm not surprised. Random and arbitrary implementation of the death penalty isn't a deterrent. One of the reasons I oppose the death penalty. The only way it's a deterrent is if it's widely used and swiftly implemented. That isn't going to happen, the public is split on it. It's far better to not have it at all than use it the way we do now. It just burns taxpayer money
 

OldTrapper

Council Member
Do the smart thing and assume everyone is a threat. Makes more sense than walking around paranoid every time you see a law abiding citizen exercising their rights.

"Do the smart thing and assume everyone is a threat." In other words be scared all the time.
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
It was the country, not the government, they wished to protect. There is nothing in the Bill of Rights about a "standing army", or the government owning guns. It is all about the citizen being the government.

Considering the condition of the world today it may be right to have a permanent standing Army. But then what becomes of the necessity for a Militia? And with that the right to own guns?
Right, which is why the right of citizens to own guns was protected in the Bill of Rights. You sure didn't say that the first time
 

freyasman

Senator
no shit!! but what are you bunch of untrained loons going to do to lower the crime rate by carrying a gun in public? drop them at burger king and wound some kid flipping burgers? most guns are not used to do good things...period. even if the intent is good, when people are shooting in a crowded place, the bystanders are about as likely to get hit as the bad guys. well-trained cops in shootouts have incredibly low accuracy rates- something like 1 out of 10. imagine a trump voter trying to shoot somebody while in a panic mode!! if he didn't shoot himself first he would probably take out 10 innocent bystanders when he whipped out his assault weapon and shot his 30 round clip in about 20 seconds. you guys are so ridiculous. all the stats, all the facts, and you still cling to your precious guns as if that is the answer to everything.... have a gun...keep it in your house. hunt with it. protect your house like John Wayne in a coonskin cap at the Alamo..just don't bring it with you out in public like a dumbass.
That's a lot of sniveling bullshit in one post, right there.
 

OldTrapper

Council Member
Right, which is why the right of citizens to own guns was protected in the Bill of Rights. You sure didn't say that the first time
I have never said otherwise. Being a gun owner all my life I do appreciate them. But to say that right has no limitations is also wrong. And to say it is the Second that gives you that right is also wrong. If you rely on the government, or the Constitution, to preserve that right you will lose. To that end each State had a clause similar to this in its Constitution:

Chapter 1. Section XVIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of the themselves and the State; and as standing armies, in the time of peace, are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; and that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.[9]
Massachusetts, June 15, 1780

Then we have the Constitution itself. In article 1, section 8, we read:

"To declare War, grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal, and make Rules concerning Captures on Land and Water;

To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Years;

To provide and maintain a Navy;

To make Rules for the Government and Regulation of the land and naval Forces;

To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions;

To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;"

Notice 2 things.

1. ONLY the Congress has the power to declare war. And even then it was for the "calling forth the MILITIA, not a permanent military force.

2. Then we see that the funding for such an endeavor must be done every two years. Again, no mention of a permanent standing Military.

Rather then rely on the Constitution for ones right to own a weapon for self defense, I would argue that it is a God given Natural Right, and cannot be taken away.
 
Last edited:
Top