General Discussion

hack89

(39,171 posts)

112. Because Dems don't own a lot of guns?

Reply to Crunchy Frog (Reply #104)

Sun Jun 19, 2016, 04:27 PM

Jun 2016

Last edited Sun Jun 19, 2016, 06:16 PM - Edit history (1)

You need to get out more.

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

273 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

No non-sworn civilian should own any device that is DESIGNED to kill a lot of humans efficiently [View all] uponit7771 Jun 2016 OP

But Thomas Jefferson commanded me to own twelve AR-15s. Orrex Jun 2016 #1

lol...+1, they'll fall back to the constitution but the SC has already weighed in on that. These... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #3

I'm my own militia!!!! Squinch Jun 2016 #11

Conditional agreement WayBeyondBlue Jun 2016 #2

Police and military are sworn's ... everyone else are civilians. I do get the point though, the poli uponit7771 Jun 2016 #6

I agree that they should not be BUT they became more armed because the Jim Beard Jun 2016 #12

So then it might be reasonable WayBeyondBlue Jun 2016 #14

Yeah.. wow, didn't know about the gun store part... then this should be done in phases. non-sworn uponit7771 Jun 2016 #52

And if you do more research Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #64

That's great, they shouldn't own devices designed to kill massive amounts of humans either regardles uponit7771 Jun 2016 #72

I remember seeing a few using their Jim Beard Jun 2016 #240

Cops didn't have enough firepower, Crooks too much Jim Beard Jun 2016 #243

Thats crazy uponit7771 Jun 2016 #266

Let the swarming begin. Kingofalldems Jun 2016 #4

Might go over better without the insults Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #5

The statement doesn't have any insults in them I hope... gumper is mine, feel free to use at will uponit7771 Jun 2016 #7

I try not to insult groups of people Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #9

Most seem physically incapable... TipTok Jun 2016 #263

Original intent means they can own as man flintlocks as they want. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #8

And you typed this on some kind of Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #10

Legal doctrine of original intent was written by quill. Agnosticsherbet Jun 2016 #78

+1, yeap... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #19

So the 1st Amendment doesn't apply to radio, tv, or the internet? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #26

Don't confuse them with facts Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #28

Red Herring, the point being intent is subjectively selected by gumper crew uponit7771 Jun 2016 #51

How is it a red herring? If the technological limit of the 18th Century applies to the 2nd Just reading posts Jun 2016 #53

The intent of the 2a wasn't for non-sworns to have devices DESIGNED to kill as many people as possib uponit7771 Jun 2016 #65

You proposed limiting the Constitution to 18th Century technology. Why would it not apply to Just reading posts Jun 2016 #73

Strawman, this is false on its face... I said "... RELATIVELY efficiently..." so that covers your... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #76

A declaration that you've covered his argument is not axiomatic friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #94

What is axiomatic is the attempts at obfuscations from folk who advocate for near open ended 2a uponit7771 Jun 2016 #141

Nearly open ended, lol Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #147

You are dodging the question: Does the First Amendment apply to electronic media? friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #79

You really expect an answer? Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #82

Not really, but it does help the intellectual vacancy behind the panic mongering friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #100

Not all... next? tia uponit7771 Jun 2016 #144

The second was for civilians Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #81

Codswallop. truebluegreen Jun 2016 #110

All you have to do is change it Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #116

Easier to re-intrepret it, truebluegreen Jun 2016 #244

Your post is both ignorant about the militia and misleading about your interlocutor friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #119

Hmm...i think, since the constitutional militias were well-regulated, jmg257 Jun 2016 #129

Are you implying that a link that doesn't work to a page that doesn't exist truebluegreen Jun 2016 #242

Except the supreme court said the 2nd amendment meant individuals... TampaAnimusVortex Jun 2016 #137

Going to address the points I raised? truebluegreen Jun 2016 #238

If he doesn't, I will- the Supremes reaffirmed Heller 8-0 a couple of months ago, in Caetano v.... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #245

Ouch, that had to hurt, 8-0 Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #246

I'm sure it did, and I'm glad of it. Just wait for the first firearms permit denied in MA... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #247

Not really the case gladium et scutum Jun 2016 #127

+1, so even then .. .relatively speaking... non sworn's did not have access to weapons that could... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #151

The majority of the Malitia were armes with smoothbore weapons. oneshooter Jun 2016 #219

Balderdash !!! uponit7771 Jun 2016 #145

You are an expert with the insults Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #60

K, what is insulting... tia uponit7771 Jun 2016 #68

Gumper for one Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #75

If 'gumper' is not insulting, than 'Dunning-Kruger survivor' would also not be, IMO. friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #96

How about "hoplophobe". oneshooter Jun 2016 #223

yes, and I have never used it Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #224

Gumper is term of endearment no? ;-) uponit7771 Jun 2016 #162

As much as some other words I can think of Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #169

OK... why is gumper offensive? ... I'll stop using it if you give a reasonable reason... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #172

I have to give a reason, no Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #176

You've not stated why its offensive ... let me know... I'm not trying to insult anyone... just have uponit7771 Jun 2016 #178

And you can do that without the insults Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #188

I am sworn, I guess I am good then Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #191

ok... ok, I'll refine the statement... someone found this down thread though... also a person uponit7771 Jun 2016 #197

Keep moving those goalposts Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #202

No goal post move, just a continuance on narrowing who can own these devices designed or could be uponit7771 Jun 2016 #205

Lol. nt Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #206

No crimson fish here, we are simply pointing out your special pleading friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #69

What has been left out? tia uponit7771 Jun 2016 #74

You propose that one part of the Constitution moved along with technology, but not another friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #97

This is false, and not all com tech can be allowed under the 1a uponit7771 Jun 2016 #173

Really? What communications technology isn't covered by the First Amendment? friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #226

There are restrictions to the 1st Amendment n/t doc03 Jun 2016 #118

Yes there are. There are also restrictions to the 2nd, yes? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #120

Indeed so Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #128

There also should be a lot more of them on the 2nd n/t doc03 Jun 2016 #130

Respectfully disagree. At the very least, the 1986 ban on the manufacture of transferable full auto Just reading posts Jun 2016 #132

We agree, and that restriction should include any device DESIGNED to kill massive amounts of humans uponit7771 Jun 2016 #174

Does that include cans of gasoline combined with padlocks and lenghts of chain? oneshooter Jun 2016 #221

The Supreme Court has already directly addressed this argument. Calista241 Jun 2016 #90

I see that the controllers don't have a response to this TeddyR Jun 2016 #131

No thanks- I'll keep mine all the same. nt hack89 Jun 2016 #13

You'll keep all your devices designed to kill a lot of humans efficiently? ... ok uponit7771 Jun 2016 #20

In 35 years I have never harmed a living thing with my guns hack89 Jun 2016 #25

Anecdotal conflation, we're not talking about you or your experience just making it easier to filter uponit7771 Jun 2016 #32

I have insurance and it costs a pittance hack89 Jun 2016 #102

The NRA would *love* an insurance requirement, as they sell a lot of firearms insurance to... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #105

Brought that up several times, still waiting for an intelligent response ... or any response DonP Jun 2016 #114

I think I responded to this already, the action doesn't have to be criminal plenty of accidents and uponit7771 Jun 2016 #207

Name one mass killing event that would be covered Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #211

The Orlando killing for instance... this guy was fucked up in the head... anyone who wants to kill a uponit7771 Jun 2016 #214

He was never found to be mentally defective Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #217

He hasn't yet, but anyone who kills massive amounts of people like that is fucked up in the head... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #232

Wow! Your ignorance of the insurance business is only exceeded by your ignorance .... DonP Jun 2016 #225

win win !!! uponit7771 Jun 2016 #179

I can't speak for the other poster, but I'm certainly going to keep my "assault weapons". Just reading posts Jun 2016 #29

Again, no need to confiscate these devices meant to kill a lot of humans just make folk carry 10 mil uponit7771 Jun 2016 #34

First you said no one could own them. Then they have get an unobtainable 1 million dollar insurance Just reading posts Jun 2016 #39

OK... lets settle on the 7 million... that's in the middle .. if a person who owns these devices... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #182

Name one company that sells a policy Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #196

No one said criminal, ... mental defects and "accidents" uponit7771 Jun 2016 #198

So they would not have paid out for any of the mass murders committed with firears Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #204

possibly if they acts can fit under mental defect which it seems a lot of them would seeing that's.. uponit7771 Jun 2016 #209

Were any of them adjudicated Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #212

Keep them all you want, just as long as they're not designed to kill massive amounts of humans... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #180

Well, I own (among others) AR-15s, an AR-10, FN-FAL, VEPR 12....which of these can I keep? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #200

It's called fantasy land Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #208

How about my 1919A4 with tripod can I keep that? n/t oneshooter Jun 2016 #222

Abso-friggin-lutely! Just reading posts Jun 2016 #235

As long as you pay the taxes and the additional background checks Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #237

It has a semi auto side plate. n/t oneshooter Jun 2016 #271

Mine must be defective Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #31

I will just because I know it tweaks you out R.A. Ganoush Jun 2016 #193

Me too Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #30

I agree, but some love their Precious more then they love the life of innocent people. Rex Jun 2016 #15

I think there are millions of these guns out there Mojorabbit Jun 2016 #85

Hundreds of millions. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #88

FWIW, 34.9 million people (AKA voters) now participate in organized rifle competitions DonP Jun 2016 #115

True and most likely millions will never harm anyone, thank goodness! Rex Jun 2016 #229

I feel the same about fast cars and huge pickup trucks Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #236

Good I am glad we agree. Rex Jun 2016 #248

And that is why any posting about the victims of Sandy Hook or Orlando, degenerates into specs -none Jun 2016 #89

...while simultaneously degenerating into moral panic mongering. friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #98

+100 Just reading posts Jun 2016 #99

So true Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #101

Without guns causing massacres, this thread would not exist. -none Jun 2016 #106

Without a belief in animism, posts like yours would not exist friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #108

Take it up with the US House, Senate and Supreme Court NickB79 Jun 2016 #16

Those rights have already been defined already and they don't include owning devices designed to... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #22

HOW are assault weapons NOT akin to MACHINE guns. THEY ARE MACHINE GUNS. SAME PRINCIPLE. pansypoo53219 Jun 2016 #17

True, only if sarisataka Jun 2016 #18

See, semantics ... bottom line the devices like the ar-15 are designed to kill a lot of humans... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #24

Point to the decision please Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #35

well regulated has already been defined and no name calling included uponit7771 Jun 2016 #40

So you can't Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #44

Already done, not getting into more obfuscation via pointing out the obvious. Well regulated is... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #55

I guess that is why Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #57

Yes, they're also stinky... any other irrelevant information we need to add to the conversation? tia uponit7771 Jun 2016 #139

I do not think being legal is irrelevant Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #143

I'm not narrowing my position to just semi automatics and that's why I said any device .. DESIGNED.. uponit7771 Jun 2016 #160

That would be all semi-automatic rifles, just say it Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #167

Nope, if its designed to fire at a relatively slow rate it wouldn't or ... take a long time to reloa uponit7771 Jun 2016 #171

Not done, and can be dismissed like it was presented- without evidence friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #61

Yeap, done... well regulated already defined... no need to go over what's already covered uponit7771 Jun 2016 #140

Semantics is one thing sarisataka Jun 2016 #126

Who decided and when? TeddyR Jun 2016 #134

Machine guns are fully automatic. "Assault weapons" are not. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #23

It is for some Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #37

More semantics, doesn't matter if fully automatic or not if they're designed to kill a lot of humans uponit7771 Jun 2016 #42

Established law disagrees with you in every respect. How 'bout that? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #95

This is false, poor verbiage has allowed gumpers to frame the position to cover too many devices... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #177

Weapons that ae in "common use" are, as per the Supremes, protected. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #195

And I think the most common type Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #199

So? Assault weapons are STILL too dangerous to be in civilian hands, pnwmom Jun 2016 #250

The post asserted that semiautomatic weapons are machine guns. This is false on the face of it. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #254

Not according to the ATF, FBI and laws and statutes Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #33

Clarification, please. What firearms are you looking to confiscate? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #21

any DEVICES designed to kill a lot of human efficiently... that covers them all. No one said ... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #27

So you plan to outlaw anything more advanced than a single shot muzzleloader. Got it. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #36

An insurance policy Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #38

Strawman, any device designed to kill a lot of humans relatively efficiently speaks for itself and.. uponit7771 Jun 2016 #46

Define it, please. Saying something is ok if it takes "long" to load isn't sufficient. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #48

Already defined, "... DESIGNED..." is in the statement uponit7771 Jun 2016 #56

Which. Firearms. Do. You. Want. To. Ban? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #63

They do that on purpose Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #67

I've never been impressed by the tactic of refusing to answer a direct question because answering Just reading posts Jun 2016 #77

Yes it does Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #84

Not dodging at all, I think its a fairly solid position... dodging is all these strawmen and red... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #201

Then answer the question- it's a simple one friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #227

Strawman, you're narrowing it to firearms my statement said DEVICE which covers all kind of shit and uponit7771 Jun 2016 #168

So, if I design a gun to kill deer.... Adrahil Jun 2016 #146

relatively... but that's a good counter position too... I'll refine on this point also uponit7771 Jun 2016 #203

AKA, move the goalposts, lol Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #213

Strictly regulate semi-automatic firearms spirald Jun 2016 #41

What do you mean by "strictly regulate"? What does it mean in practice? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #45

They should be NFA firearms and treated as automatic weapons. spirald Jun 2016 #54

So I'd have to get a $200 tax stamp and go through 6 months of paperwork for each of the dozens Just reading posts Jun 2016 #58

Do you disagree with the machine gun laws? Or.. spirald Jun 2016 #71

Yes. The 1986 law which banned the manufacture of transferable machine guns is absurd. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #83

I agree Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #86

Do you draw the line anywhere? spirald Jun 2016 #111

What "right to our collective defense" would that be, and where is it encoded into law? friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #117

US Constitution - Article 1, section 8 spirald Jun 2016 #228

Which in no way limits the restrictions on government in the Bill of Rights friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #234

Sure. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #122

Sorry, didn't hear an answer to the question. spirald Jun 2016 #255

I wasn't sufficiently clear, I apologize. I do believe in government restrictions on some weaponry Just reading posts Jun 2016 #256

I think we just draw the line at a different place spirald Jun 2016 #264

You *can't* extend that law. Read Caetano v. Massachusetts, a recent Supreme Court holding: friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #272

Mandate insurance policies and if caught jail time minimum a week of advocating against guns or uponit7771 Jun 2016 #62

You do know that insurance policies can't cover criminal acts, do you not? Just reading posts Jun 2016 #66

Pesky facts again Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #70

Dont stop him, he's rolling jack_krass Jun 2016 #273

Red herring, they can cover accidents and mental issues... good try, but been here already uponit7771 Jun 2016 #138

So where are the insurance companies offering a ten million dollar policy against gun accidents and Just reading posts Jun 2016 #142

When the policies cost 550 a month they'll come out of the wood work uponit7771 Jun 2016 #157

$600 a year to exercise a constitional right? It would never survive a court challenge. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #163

Don't see anywhere that people have a CR to own devices that are DESIGNED to kill massive amounts uponit7771 Jun 2016 #164

Would it have covered any of these mass murders, no Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #150

Never said they would... good try though... you guys keep em comin... at least the retorts uponit7771 Jun 2016 #158

Yeap, that's why the any device designed to kill a lot of humans covers them all so they can't just uponit7771 Jun 2016 #47

Before Orlando TeddyR Jun 2016 #135

Regulate semi-auto pistols as machine guns spirald Jun 2016 #257

Assault weapon was coined Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #50

The "assault weapon" term was invented by gun control advocates. Adrahil Jun 2016 #148

Or not = Gun Digest...1986 jmg257 Jun 2016 #152

Looked into this.... Adrahil Jun 2016 #154

This one is even tricker... 1982 jmg257 Jun 2016 #155

That's not tricky... Adrahil Jun 2016 #161

And "sporting arm assault rifle"? What's the specs on that? jmg257 Jun 2016 #165

If it's not select-fire, it's not an "assault rifle" Adrahil Jun 2016 #175

Of course..."Semi auto assault rifle" and that new one to me "sporting arm assault rifle" jmg257 Jun 2016 #181

BTW thanks for the info from CA 1985. nt jmg257 Jun 2016 #156

no civilian or civilian law enforcement agency should have this gun BlackLivesMatter Jun 2016 #43

True, there's no need for 82nd airborne in Americas neighborhoods. The reason why non-sworn is uponit7771 Jun 2016 #49

Better what you term 'obfuscation' then what I call bafflegab... friendly_iconoclast Jun 2016 #59

No organized military uses this weapon TeddyR Jun 2016 #136

Just as a note: Most Government Employees swear an Oath. NutmegYankee Jun 2016 #80

Yep, I had too Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #87

Hey...I'm a postal worker! That means as per the OP, I get anything I want! Just reading posts Jun 2016 #91

maybe DustyJoe Jun 2016 #159

Ok... good point, that could be narrowed to the job for instance... good point though uponit7771 Jun 2016 #166

I'm sorry but "hyperbole for effect" has no effect at all. That's not why people quit responding... cherokeeprogressive Jun 2016 #92

Cool story pintobean Jun 2016 #93

Okay, so you want to ban all cars and trucks!!! whistler162 Jun 2016 #103

Pity that this should be seen as flamebait on an allegedly "progressive" site. Crunchy Frog Jun 2016 #104

Because Dems don't own a lot of guns? hack89 Jun 2016 #112

Thanks for illustrating my point. Crunchy Frog Jun 2016 #123

When a large proportion of the Democratic party are gun owners hack89 Jun 2016 #124

Oh, I accept the reality that we're stuck with your death toys. Crunchy Frog Jun 2016 #125

advocating any folk shouldn't own devices that are designed to kill massive amounts is progressive uponit7771 Jun 2016 #183

Agree. Sadly, a very vocal contingent on this site does not. Crunchy Frog Jun 2016 #233

My take is to ask you to specify what weapons precisely, you are referring to, and cali Jun 2016 #107

devices ... not weapons, not allowing the gumper semantic arguments here... any device uponit7771 Jun 2016 #185

I personally hate guns, dear. so take your fucking name calling and.... cali Jun 2016 #267

Then I wasn't talking about you, don't be so sensitive Cali... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #268

you absolutely fucking were. It was a post directed to ME. Period. cali Jun 2016 #269

wow... there was no "YOU" in my statement so now you're makin shit up... I was speaking of uponit7771 Jun 2016 #270

At least i can keep my AR Travis_0004 Jun 2016 #109

Ah... a crack in the statement... thx for this I'll refine uponit7771 Jun 2016 #186

Devices designed to kill humans shouldn't exist. K&R Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #113

Devices to kill humans have existed since humans have existed. And they always will. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #121

Which says something about the awkwardness of our claims to be highly evolved. Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #184

It says we're smart enough to invent weapons, unlike every other species on the planet. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #251

And, kill each other. Smart? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #258

If someone is trying to kill you, the best way to prevent this is often to get them killed, either Just reading posts Jun 2016 #259

Kill you with weapons designed to kill? Tierra_y_Libertad Jun 2016 #260

Well...most of them are, after all. The effective ones, anyway. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #261

Strawman, the statement included the word ... DESIGNED... good try though uponit7771 Jun 2016 #187

I was responding to post #113, not your OP. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #252

I can't own a sword? NT Adrahil Jun 2016 #149

Swords aren't DESIGNED to kill massive amounts of humans reltively efficiently uponit7771 Jun 2016 #189

Read the post I was responding to. Adrahil Jun 2016 #194

you're right uponit7771 Jun 2016 #210

Oh go blow it out you ass man! We should all be packing. JanMichael Jun 2016 #133

F@<{ that noise. Now that I've sworn can I have my AR? aikoaiko Jun 2016 #153

Yeap, ... clever gets you a long way ... lol... uponit7771 Jun 2016 #190

What about a device DESIGNED to save a lot of humans efficiently. ileus Jun 2016 #170

We'll keep those... as long as they're saving can't be switched to killing comparitively easily uponit7771 Jun 2016 #192

Define "a lot" and "efficiently" in this case. flvegan Jun 2016 #215

If they are designed to to kill a lot of humans then Americans must be using them wrong. Waldorf Jun 2016 #216

Mine are all defective of course my bolt action Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #218

Wonder what the OP would think of my Jungle Carbine. Just reading posts Jun 2016 #253

Cigarettes are going to be banned? jtx Jun 2016 #220

unnnn, it wasn't purposefully designed that way but you have a point... any device that could be use uponit7771 Jun 2016 #231

AGREED!!!! gopiscrap Jun 2016 #230

And so do you if you partake in alcohol Duckhunter935 Jun 2016 #239

I don't drink and I definitely don't use or text my phone when drivingf gopiscrap Jun 2016 #249

Really? You should tell that to these guys: Just reading posts Jun 2016 #241

I assume a sworn civillian sarisataka Jun 2016 #262

So no firearms at all or a limit on rounds one can hold? N/t dilby Jun 2016 #265