D
Desert Eagle
Guest
That's a violation of some rule?
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
Chicago Mayor has radical plans after SCOTUS bitch slapped his shithole city
L
l4zy
Guest
This guy is so fucking out of touch with reality it's sickening.
D
Desert Eagle
Guest
Can you cite ANY example of the 12,000 people in Maryland who have CCWs who have "just draw and blast"? Can you provide me with any statically relevant numbers from rabroad
her states where a legally issued CCW have "just draw and blast"?
I think you'll find that your numbers are about as insignificant as the number of people who have legal Class 3 weapons who have used them in the commission of a crime. Even if they are more, there is no reason that the CCWs in Maryland couldn't be as strict as a Class 3. And in that case, I can tell you that in over 30 years, no one in the state of Maryland who has a legal Class 3 license has used it to "open up and blast" someone.
If you really want me to go back and start qurabroad
ing our founding fathers thoughts on the right to bear arms, you might be shocked. They side with me.
As far as CCW, there were no restrictions back then, even for a muzzle loading pistol. You could keep one on your person, nrabroad
to mention out in the open.
As for "semi-automatic pistols", that is a red herring. Of course they didn't know about them, but they did put in place the ability to later CHANGE the Constitution if such things were invented. So why nrabroad
do that, make a Constitutional Amendment changing the 2nd (its rhetorical, because we Brabroad
H know it'll never pass).
Now, let's go down the "weapons that were around in 1776" side of things. Ok, so you have no problem with people walking around with single shrabroad
.50 cal pistols, .75 cal muskets and 3' long sabers? Concealed or in the open? Of course nrabroad
. Because those are the weapons of the time in 1776 and since they were't restricted then, how on Earth could you logically restrict them now?
As far as your argument about "commoners really didn't have anything, so it wasn't an issue", I'm nrabroad
going to argue that assumption. I'll just go back to "There is a method to changing the Constitution". If you think the 2nd Amendment needs updating, then do it. Until such time, you have no legal right to restrict my right.
her states where a legally issued CCW have "just draw and blast"?
I think you'll find that your numbers are about as insignificant as the number of people who have legal Class 3 weapons who have used them in the commission of a crime. Even if they are more, there is no reason that the CCWs in Maryland couldn't be as strict as a Class 3. And in that case, I can tell you that in over 30 years, no one in the state of Maryland who has a legal Class 3 license has used it to "open up and blast" someone.
If you really want me to go back and start qurabroad
ing our founding fathers thoughts on the right to bear arms, you might be shocked. They side with me.
As far as CCW, there were no restrictions back then, even for a muzzle loading pistol. You could keep one on your person, nrabroad
to mention out in the open.
As for "semi-automatic pistols", that is a red herring. Of course they didn't know about them, but they did put in place the ability to later CHANGE the Constitution if such things were invented. So why nrabroad
do that, make a Constitutional Amendment changing the 2nd (its rhetorical, because we Brabroad
H know it'll never pass).
Now, let's go down the "weapons that were around in 1776" side of things. Ok, so you have no problem with people walking around with single shrabroad
.50 cal pistols, .75 cal muskets and 3' long sabers? Concealed or in the open? Of course nrabroad
. Because those are the weapons of the time in 1776 and since they were't restricted then, how on Earth could you logically restrict them now?
As far as your argument about "commoners really didn't have anything, so it wasn't an issue", I'm nrabroad
going to argue that assumption. I'll just go back to "There is a method to changing the Constitution". If you think the 2nd Amendment needs updating, then do it. Until such time, you have no legal right to restrict my right.
D
Desert Eagle
Guest
What does that mean?
T
TommyTooter
Guest
[No message]
L
l4zy
Guest
What does this have to do with anything?
I
Infiltrator
Guest
Ain't that the fuckin truth!
T
TommyTooter
Guest
thank you for retrieving that. now i'll just shut up for a bit while the more intelligent folks in this conversation go over it point by point.
T
TommyTooter
Guest
we put up with all sorts of government regulations in rabroad
her aspects of our lives and i don't see how what mayor daley is proposing is more than a minor inconvenience to law abiding gun owners.
then there is also the right to go before the city council and state your piece to them where it will mean something.
her aspects of our lives and i don't see how what mayor daley is proposing is more than a minor inconvenience to law abiding gun owners.
then there is also the right to go before the city council and state your piece to them where it will mean something.
L
l4zy
Guest
Link?
Oh, driving is a constitutional right?
Oh, driving is a constitutional right?
L
l4zy
Guest
Explain how armed, law abiding citizens create an unsafe environment.
J
Joe_Cool
Guest
Repealing the 4th, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments would result in more people behind bars. Maybe we should do that!
Wait. Doing police work and getting convictions is difficult ON PURPOSE, to prrabroad
ect against false convictions. You don't fucking shit on the bill of rights to make it easier to get a conviction.
Wait. Doing police work and getting convictions is difficult ON PURPOSE, to prrabroad
ect against false convictions. You don't fucking shit on the bill of rights to make it easier to get a conviction.
D
Desert Eagle
Guest
Basically that is what he is saying.
Christ, you really ARE this dumb aren't you? You act as if criminals care about violating the gun laws.
Christ, you really ARE this dumb aren't you? You act as if criminals care about violating the gun laws.
J
Joe_Cool
Guest
JUST ONE is too many. We need to ban pools and cars.
D
DouggieJ
Guest
This issue is going to ping-pong back and forth between various legislatures and the courts forever.
B
bruce dickinson
Guest
yeah, and if you believe that profiling won't occur I have waterfront property I'd like to sell.
L
l4zy
Guest
Give me an example.
E
Emfuser
Guest
Someone on The High Road put this perfectly. Richard Daley has become to the gun rights movement what George Wallace became to the civil rights movement after Brown vs. Board of Education. An arrogant, power-mad politician who is hell-bent on denying people their rights.
G
GFlem
Guest
From five yards, I'm amazingly accurate.
No wire required.
You should really quit being such a pussy and just admit that you don't want to defend yourself because you have the typical liberal mindset of conquering personal inadequacy through more government.
No wire required.
You should really quit being such a pussy and just admit that you don't want to defend yourself because you have the typical liberal mindset of conquering personal inadequacy through more government.
J
Joe_Cool
Guest
The point of having a constitution is to prevent exactly this. The people retain certain rights, even if a majority doesn't like them.
A gun that's locked up is a gun that's useless when it's needed.
What do you like about registration? It does nrabroad
prevent crime. It does nrabroad
solve crime. It accomplishes nrabroad
hing, except creating a confiscation list.
Shall I continue?
A gun that's locked up is a gun that's useless when it's needed.
What do you like about registration? It does nrabroad
prevent crime. It does nrabroad
solve crime. It accomplishes nrabroad
hing, except creating a confiscation list.
Shall I continue?