TomServo92 Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 The video speaks for itself about this gun-grabber elitist who "thinks" he knows what it right or wrong for the rest of us. Perhaps before introducing legislation, you should actually know about what you're trying to legislate. http://youtu.be/xI6eE_FAwao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 State of the art ignorance from an elected official. Its always entertaining when liberals speak to the technical merits of firearms, manufacture and engineering. The only one more ignorant and misinformed are the people that elected the dumb ass. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 20, 2014 Share Posted January 20, 2014 State of the art ignorance from an elected official. Its always entertaining when liberals speak to the technical merits of firearms, manufacture and engineering. The only one more ignorant and misinformed are the people that elected the dumb ass. We have to read your state of the art ignorance on everything other than firearms so i guess it all evens out. That guy should stick to politics and you should just not say anything. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 A ghost gun cant be too clean....... 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 (edited) A ghost gun cant be too clean....... I wish you wouldn't post pictures of yourself on the interwebz Edited January 21, 2014 by Langston Hughes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted January 21, 2014 Share Posted January 21, 2014 Enough personal attacks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Senator "Ghost guns" Bio~ (Sounds similar to someone else in office that is likely equally clueless about firearms,the economy, healthcare ,unemployment, foreign affairs and holds the liar of the year title for 2013) Prior to being elected to the Legislature, Senator De León worked as a community organizer, English as a Second Language and U.S. Citizenship teacher, and was a staff advocate for public schools during his five years at the California Teachers Association. He also served as a Senior Associate for the National Education Association (NEA) in Washington, D.C., where he advocated for more resources for schools in low-income neighborhoods. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cal50 Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Just another stupid lawmaker from California. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/21/anti-gun-senator-is-being-mocked-relentlessly-after-he-warned-of-30-caliber-clip-in-embarrassing-video/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted January 22, 2014 Share Posted January 22, 2014 Just another stupid lawmaker from California. http://www.theblaze.com/stories/2014/01/21/anti-gun-senator-is-being-mocked-relentlessly-after-he-warned-of-30-caliber-clip-in-embarrassing-video/ It's the same fucking story! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Imawhosure Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Just a reasonable question I read on another forum----------> If voting is a right of citizens of this country if they are eligible, and if asking voters to have a form of ID to vote to prove who they are..........then why is it if owning a gun is also protected under the constitution, why is it we demand they jump through hoops, pay taxes to acquire hand gun permits, etc? Seems to me that if both of these activities are basically covered under the constitution or its amendments, we can't say with a straight face that one is an unfair tax, and the other is not. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted February 1, 2014 Share Posted February 1, 2014 Just a reasonable question I read on another forum----------> If voting is a right of citizens of this country if they are eligible, and if asking voters to have a form of ID to vote to prove who they are..........then why is it if owning a gun is also protected under the constitution, why is it we demand they jump through hoops, pay taxes to acquire hand gun permits, etc? Seems to me that if both of these activities are basically covered under the constitution or its amendments, we can't say with a straight face that one is an unfair tax, and the other is not. Well regulated....Nuff said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) Well regulated....Nuff said. Well let's "well regulate" the vote. Nuff said. To carry a concealed firearm requires classroom and field demonstrations of ability and testing on related issues. Fingerprints, background checks, requirements to register with the state, vehicle registration tied to your license to carry, and photo i.d. To vote, the dumbest s.o.b. just has to SHOW UP! Edited February 2, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 2, 2014 Author Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) Well regulated....Nuff said. At the time in which the 2nd Amendment was written, "well regulated" meant "well functioning" not "well controlled". Edited February 2, 2014 by TomServo92 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Well let's "well regulate" the vote. Nuff said. To carry a concealed firearm requires classroom and field demonstrations of ability and testing on related issues. Fingerprints, background checks, requirements to register with the state, vehicle registration tied to your license to carry, and photo i.d. To vote, the dumbest s.o.b. just has to SHOW UP! well, ain't it funny that the so-called defender of our freedoms wants to limit voting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 At the time in which the 2nd Amendment was written, "well regulated" meant "well functioning" not "well controlled". So the use of weapons should be for the purpose of a well functioning militia then? A well functioning unit is one that is subject to rules and discipline not one that is willy nilly and independent. The standard you apply to the term well regulated doesn't make your case that there should be very little oversight of firearms. So who said this? It doesn't seem to me that he was suggesting that every citizen can just own guns and go off on his merry way with little or no regard from the state or federal government. "The devising and establishing of a well regulated militia, would be a genuine source of legislative honor... carrying to its full energy the power of organizing, arming, and disciplining the militia; and thus providing, in the language of the constitution, for calling them forth to execute the laws of the union, suppress insurrections, and repel invasions." (Address to Congress, November 19, 1794) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 (edited) well, ain't it funny that the so-called defender of our freedoms wants to limit voting. Not at all. My position is the right to bear arms is unlimited beside convicted felons or insanity....is remarkably close to unencumbered right to vote. However, if the "inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is not required to be enumerated in the constitution because it is acknowledged to preexist the constitution, I feel it stands above the "right to vote" which is a construct of the government and the US Constitution. I am in no way attempting to limit ones lawful right to vote. I do have disdain for the idiots not allowed to own a firearm for their risk to the community are allowd to vote...especially when they are the folks represented on many "reality shows" and their audiences. Take a look at "People of Walmart" and you'll understand. Edited February 2, 2014 by FiredMotorCompany Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 Not at all. My position is the right to bear arms is unlimited beside convicted felons or insanity....is remarkably close to unencumbered right to vote. However, if the "inalienable right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness" is not required to be enumerated in the constitution because it is acknowledged to preexist the constitution, I feel it stands above the "right to vote" which is a construct of the government and the US Constitution. I am in no way attempting to limit ones lawful right to vote. I do have disdain for the idiots not allowed to own a firearm for their risk to the community are allowd to vote...especially when they are the folks represented on many "reality shows" and their audiences. While i can understand your feelings about violent criminals, the idea that a firearm and a single vote are equal threats to society while philosophically might seem correct, it doesn't work out that way. The potential for duly elected governments to endorse violence and mass criminality doesn't match the the potential for violence by ex-felons. On an interesting note* The propensity for crazy people to populate these new doomsday reality shows is beginning to clear out some felons who have violated restrictions on owning firearms. Who said reality TV was bad? http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/01/16/2997066/doomsday-prepper-from-buckley.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FiredMotorCompany Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 While i can understand your feelings about violent criminals, the idea that a firearm and a single vote are equal threats to society while philosophically might seem correct, it doesn't work out that way. The potential for duly elected governments to endorse violence and mass criminality doesn't match the the potential for violence by ex-felons. On an interesting note* The propensity for crazy people to populate these new doomsday reality shows is beginning to clear out some felons who have violated restrictions on owning firearms. Who said reality TV was bad? http://www.thenewstribune.com/2014/01/16/2997066/doomsday-prepper-from-buckley.html One man with a firearm and ammo may cause several injuries/deaths before being stopped. Where a vote can kill a country. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted February 2, 2014 Share Posted February 2, 2014 One man with a firearm and ammo may cause several injuries/deaths before being stopped. Where a vote can kill a country. Philosophically yes, but in reality it takes a lot of "supposedly" law abiding good and even godly people to set aside their better judgement and worry only about their alleged grievances. the felon is not the problem then, it is the the people who knew better. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 2, 2014 Author Share Posted February 2, 2014 So the use of weapons should be for the purpose of a well functioning militia then? A well functioning unit is one that is subject to rules and discipline not one that is willy nilly and independent. The standard you apply to the term well regulated doesn't make your case that there should be very little oversight of firearms. So who said this? It doesn't seem to me that he was suggesting that every citizen can just own guns and go off on his merry way with little or no regard from the state or federal government. George Washington said it. So what? One needs only look at the second clause of the 2nd Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The Constitution does not equate "the people" as being "the government" nor does it refer to the militia in that manner. The people are the citizenry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Langston Hughes Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 George Washington said it. So what? One needs only look at the second clause of the 2nd Amendment: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The Constitution does not equate "the people" as being "the government" nor does it refer to the militia in that manner. The people are the citizenry. Again, the idea of a "well functioning militia" doesn't indicate that there is no regulations not that there should be. You stressed "well functioning" which is not now what your suggesting. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TomServo92 Posted February 3, 2014 Author Share Posted February 3, 2014 Again, the idea of a "well functioning militia" doesn't indicate that there is no regulations not that there should be. You stressed "well functioning" which is not now what your suggesting. I was merely clarifying the context of the wording. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Specially made for the retard 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sprinter Posted February 3, 2014 Share Posted February 3, 2014 Again, the idea of a "well functioning militia" doesn't indicate that there is no regulations not that there should be. You stressed "well functioning" which is not now what your suggesting. 10 U.S. CODE § 311 - MILITIA: COMPOSITION AND CLASSES US Code Notes Updates prev | NEXT (a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are— (1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.