Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Vermont Republican Governor sign gun control bills into law

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    If you're going to play Gotcha! with Detroit, I can always substitute Chicago instead.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by JimRaynor View Post
      Stupid, limiting gun magazines to 10 rounds? Unconstitutional
      How is limiting a gun mag to 10 rds unconstitutional? Is there something in the constitution I missed or overlooked that deals with how many rds in a magazine?

      Like legit don't give me some round about sh^t talking about libtards or w/e. Just give me your "facts" on what you said was correct or just say "oh damn man maybe I overstepped on that one".

      Comment


      • #33
        Originally posted by Eff Pandas View Post
        How is limiting a gun mag to 10 rds unconstitutional? Is there something in the constitution I missed or overlooked that deals with how many rds in a magazine?

        Like legit don't give me some round about sh^t talking about libtards or w/e. Just give me your "facts" on what you said was correct or just say "oh damn man maybe I overstepped on that one".
        By that same token why stop at 10? How is limiting a gun to 6 rounds or 2 rounds or even 1 round unconstitutional?

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by JimRaynor View Post
          By that same token why stop at 10? How is limiting a gun to 6 rounds or 2 rounds or even 1 round unconstitutional?
          "By the same token" doesn't have anything to do with unconstitutional.

          See this is where you always go off the rails. You get emotional about sh^t & suddenly EVERYTHING is about the Constitution when its clearly not.

          Why would a gun having 2 rd mags or 50 rd mags matter as far as how the 2nd amendment is written? Or is there some other amendment you are referring to?

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by Eff Pandas View Post
            "By the same token" doesn't have anything to do with unconstitutional.

            See this is where you always go off the rails. You get emotional about sh^t & suddenly EVERYTHING is about the Constitution when its clearly not.

            Why would a gun having 2 rd mags or 50 rd mags matter as far as how the 2nd amendment is written? Or is there some other amendment you are referring to?

            No one is getting emotional about this, but you clearly are clueless about the ideas and thought processes that went into drafting the 2nd amendment, and I'd argue clueless about history in general.

            It has everything to do with it otherwise you might as well arm people with sling shots and be done with it. The 2nd Amendment was written first and foremost to stop tyrannical governments from overpowering people, which initially meant for people to possess an adequate means for self defense. The government is already armed with the latest and greatest and here you are advocating for 2 round guns, better yet perhaps we can defend ourselves with medieval swords.
            Last edited by JimRaynor; 04-14-2018, 03:52 PM.

            Comment


            • #36
              "good people do not need laws to tell them to act responsibly, while bad people will find a way around the laws"
              ― Plato

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by JimRaynor View Post
                No one is getting emotional about this, but you clearly are clueless about the ideas and thought processes that went into drafting the 2nd amendment, and I'd argue clueless about history in general.
                Show me where are forefathers are talking about how many rds is it okay or not okay to have for a gun magazine in the Constitution or other laws they created/got passed. Enlighten me.

                It has everything to do with it otherwise you might as well arm people with sling shots and be done with it.
                I think I got a lil contact buzz from readin this remark. What slingshots & firearms got to do with the topic at hand is beyond my understanding.

                The 2nd Amendment was written first and foremost to stop tyrannical governments from overpowering people, which initially meant for people to possess an adequate means for self defense. The government is already armed with the latest and greatest and here you are advocating for 2 round guns, better yet perhaps we can defend ourselves with medieval swords.
                I'm not "advocating" for anything you weirdo always trying to put words in people's mouths when they test you instead of going head to head with the logic of the question being asked & answered.

                Also now that I think of it respect on not using the word libtard or other silly terms, as of yet anyway, cuz I can only assume you are busting at the seams holding back on them.

                But anyway I'm merely suggesting there isn't a mfing thing about whats an acceptable amount of rounds a magazine should have in the Constitution so thats something We The People can play with, like it or not.

                There is absolutely nothing in that magazine debate that has ANYTHING to do with constitutional or unconstitutional & I can't even believe anyone would suggest that its such a weird thing to say.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by siablo14 View Post
                  If a neighbouring state has lax gun laws it won't be really matter.

                  Look at Chicago(Illinois) with tougher guns laws than Indiana so the criminals went and got their guns in Indiana and brought them back to Chicago to wreak havoc.
                  Originally posted by 1bad65 View Post
                  Look at what gun control policies got Chicago. And Detroit. And DC.

                  Only a fool would celebrate those policies being put in place where they live.
                  This is a myth that Chicago (Illinois) has some of the strictest gun laws. But go ahead, keep regurgitating what you hear. Just makes you two a couple of Funt Cuckers.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by Eff Pandas View Post
                    Show me where are forefathers are talking about how many rds is it okay or not okay to have for a gun magazine in the Constitution or other laws they created/got passed. Enlighten me.
                    Show me where the forefathers are talking about how citizens cannot own fully automatic firearms and grenade launchers. Enlighten me.


                    I think I got a lil contact buzz from readin this remark. What slingshots & firearms got to do with the topic at hand is beyond my understanding.



                    I'm not "advocating" for anything you weirdo always trying to put words in people's mouths when they test you instead of going head to head with the logic of the question being asked & answered.

                    Also now that I think of it respect on not using the word libtard or other silly terms, as of yet anyway, cuz I can only assume you are busting at the seams holding back on them.

                    But anyway I'm merely suggesting there isn't a mfing thing about whats an acceptable amount of rounds a magazine should have in the Constitution so thats something We The People can play with, like it or not.

                    There is absolutely nothing in that magazine debate that has ANYTHING to do with constitutional or unconstitutional & I can't even believe anyone would suggest that its such a weird thing to say.
                    I really cannot argue with you on this any longer if you are this clueless about the purpose of the 2nd amendment, and cannot see how having firearms severely limited to something like 2 rounds impedes the peoples ability to defend themselves against a potentially hostile government which would be armed to the teeth.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by Funt-Cucker View Post
                      This is a myth that Chicago (Illinois) has some of the strictest gun laws. But go ahead, keep regurgitating what you hear. Just makes you two a couple of Funt Cuckers.
                      If it's a myth, provide some sources saying as such.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X
                      TOP