Obama and gun control

... and yes, let's disarm that old coot.......

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surveil ... e-robbers/

DOJ is already on the case. If we start killing those illegals and the take the dead dogs off the voter roll, there will be no one left to vote democrap.

HAHAHAHAHA - I slay myself.

coalnewbie wrote:... and yes, let's disarm that old coot.......

http://www.theblaze.com/stories/surveil ... e-robbers/

DOJ is already on the case. If we start killing those illegals and the take the dead dogs off the voter roll, there will be no one left to vote democrap.

HAHAHAHAHA - I slay myself.

doesn't look like any of the 290 million or so hand guns all you "heroes" carry , did any of the latest victims "again" in Colorado any good. Louie Gomer t , said some card carrying hero should have stood up and started firing back at the domestic terrorist, who was wearing body armor and in a dark theater. Big mouth himself, he probably would have been pissing his pants had He been in the line of fire, end of the day, less hand guns, assault weapons, less death. I though repubicraps were all for life, B.S.

It's highly likely that the theater had signs posted stating that it was illegal to carry firearms inside.

Then again maybe it didn't. The thing is there is no need for high volume clips for hunting anything except human prey. There was a law against them & some ammo but the NRA made short work of that. Don't get me wrong I'm all for the second amendment which has a part about a well regulated militia, not every Tom, Dick & Harry can buy arms because it's their right. Those in the movie theater also had first amendment rights which that A-hole took away from them. If you learn how to aim & fire a weapon correctly there is no need for high volume clips & rapid firing weapons.

samhill wrote:Then again maybe it didn't. The thing is there is no need for high volume clips for hunting anything except human prey. There was a law against them & some ammo but the NRA made short work of that. Don't get me wrong I'm all for the second amendment which has a part about a well regulated militia, not every Tom, Dick & Harry can buy arms because it's their right. Those in the movie theater also had first amendment rights which that A-hole took away from them. If you learn how to aim & fire a weapon correctly there is no need for high volume clips & rapid firing weapons.

You can legislate away FREEDOM but you will never stop violence from happening.

The 2A has nothing to do with hunting.

I'm sure as long as we hitch a ride on the government provided cattle cars, for our "safety" mind you, everything will be OK.

What freedom? Where does it say you have the right to own anything but a flintlock, they never even mentioned a cannon, guess that was considered artillery which would be great for hunting or shooting trap.
Jpete just because it isn't spelled out doesn't mean it wasn't meant for hunting along with protection (no harm intended with this Fred) but if you recall not all Indians were super friendly & there were bears everywhere that S*** in the woods that were pretty much everywhere. Protection of the country & self with a little meat on the table, that's the reason to have arms. Then again they said nothing about a helicopter gunship, maybe I should look into that.

The reference to militia implies a military weapon.

homecomfort wrote:doesn't look like any of the 290 million or so hand guns all you "heroes" carry , did any of the latest victims "again" in Colorado any good. Louie Gohmert said some card carrying hero should have stood up and started firing back at the domestic terrorist, who was wearing body armor and in a dark theater.

Louie Gohmert is a cousin of Gomer Pyle.

Picture these 5 citizens:

A, B, C, and D are fine upstanding people carrying their licensed concealed weapons.

E (for Evil) is not a fine upstanding person but bought a few semi-automatics anyway because even though he is only marginally sane that doesn't disqualify him from legal weapons purchases.

E, one sunny afternoon, starts offing grandmas and their grandkids in a WalMart parking lot.

A hears the gunfire, sees what is happening, pulls his gun and shoots at E but misses.

B is at WalMart with his young family. His wife, with natural motherly instincts, grabs the handles of the stroller and says, "Come on! Take the children's hands, and let’s go toward the gunfire and the screaming!" Like Hell she does! B and she and the little ones scooch down and make tracks in the other direction.

C, not burdened with an overprotective wife, runs toward the screaming. He sees E duck behind a pickup truck, sees A fire again and kill Spartacus, a black Lab sitting in the bed of the pickup. C is a dog lover, and he naturally assumes that A is the bad guy who is attacking E and has just killed man’s best friend. So C lets fly with three shots. Two hit members of Miss Smith’s kindergarten class. One wings A and knocks him down. A, realizing now that there are TWO bad guys, gets behind a concrete light base and takes another shot at E.

Finally D arrives – it’s about time! – comes up behind E who he thinks is under attack by gang members A and C. “I’ve got your back!”, he shouts to E, who immediately turns and put a bullet in D’s stomach. D goes down, but still has his gun. He thinks E shot him by mistake, assuming he was part of the gang, so he continues to shoot at A and C.

Far-fetched? I don't think so.

Now a couple of police cruisers roll in. They see a few grandmothers down, a few grandchildren down, Mrs. Smith doing something (what?!) to some bleeding kindergarteners, and four all-American males apparently shooting randomly at one another. Gang war? Blow ‘em all away, and ask questions later? Or what?

You are perfectly free to construct any scenario you wish. That's what the nut job did.

up here where i live it can takeup to an hour for help (police) to arrive , especially in the middle of the nite. bet ur butt i am armed and will not hesitate to use it and so are the rest of my neighbors
t
he closest a half mile away... thank you founding fathers for my 2nd. ammendment

samhill wrote:What freedom? Where does it say you have the right to own anything but a flintlock, they never even mentioned a cannon, guess that was considered artillery which would be great for hunting or shooting trap.

Where did they specify the type of weapon to be borne seeing as you want to get down to a gnats ass.

The 2A is to protect yourself from indians, bears or an overbearing government.

Whatever is necessary to do that job is what everyone should have.

Because first and foremost, you have a right to LIFE. Without that, nothing else really matters much.

That was my point Jpete, they didn't have but a few types of similar weapons, if you want to interpret what they meant you have to think in their time instead of what you want it to mean.

samhill wrote:That was my point Jpete, they didn't have but a few types of similar weapons, if you want to interpret what they meant you have to think in their time instead of what you want it to mean.

So flintlock and cannon are all we are allowed to have?

The NRA is going to be surprised.

How does that protect us from a dictator?

There you go again Jpete, they could only consider what they knew of is what I'm saying, that's all nothing sinister about it, if you believe it gives you the right to own a nuke because some nut job in another country has one & may come after you for some odd reason go ahead & see how far you get.