Gun Control Debate - Sacramento, CA

what a bunch of idiotic slogans. The term gun control refers to many different things.Some being very common sensical and others being knee jerk laws written usually in response to some tragedy.Most gun laws are BS but any common sense debate on the subject should include the understanding that some people in society just need to be denied access to guns.If you can't wrap your head around that then you are an idiot.

Max Lenz wrote:

what a bunch of idiotic slogans. The term gun control refers to many different things.Some being very common sensical and others being knee jerk laws written usually in response to some tragedy.Most gun laws are BS but any common sense debate on the subject should include the understanding that some people in society just need to be denied access to guns.If you can't wrap your head around that then you are an idiot.

What a bunch of codswallop. Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. The 2nd Amendment speaks directly to the government on infringement. It says nothing about "some people in society just need to be denied access to guns". If you can't wrap your head around that, you're a colostomy bag with ears.

Law wrote:

<quoted text>What a bunch of codswallop. Gun control isn't about guns, it's about control. The 2nd Amendment speaks directly to the government on infringement. It says nothing about "some people in society just need to be denied access to guns". If you can't wrap your head around that, you're a colostomy bag with ears.

I was talking about and "common sense debate".You obviously have no common sense.The 2nd ammendment refers to a "well regulated militia"Most people with a brain understand that violent convicted criminals should have that right taken away.I probably have more guns than you do but I'm smart enough to understand the 2nd ammendment and it's limitations.Maybe you should read it sometime.

Max Lenz wrote:

<quoted text>I was talking about and "common sense debate".You obviously have no common sense.

And you obviously know nothing about the Bill of Rights nor the concept of rights and liberties.

Max Lenz wrote:

The 2nd ammendment refers to a "well regulated militia"

The 2nd ammendment(sic) speaks to jut one use for the right. Or is it your assertion that the right to keep and bear arms ony applies to the militia?

Max Lenz wrote:

Most people with a brain understand that violent convicted criminals should have that right taken away.

Most people with a brain know that criminals don't go through legal channels to get their guns. So denying the right to someone that has paid back their debt to society amounts to double jeopardy.

Max Lenz wrote:

I probably have more guns than you do....

Could be Max, but I'll bet I've been shooting longer than you and have been a Certified Firarms Instructor longer than you. Now what?

Max Lenz wrote:

but I'm smart enough to understand the 2nd ammendment and it's limitations.Maybe you should read it sometime.

Really Max? Do elucidate!! Show us where the word "limitation" is. Can do? Will do? Anytime you want to compare 2nd Amendment meaning and intent I'm all ears.

"The 2nd ammendment(sic) speaks to jut one use for the right."

Should have been "The 2nd ammendment(sic) speaks to just one use for the right."

It doesn't mention all of the other uses. Nor does it limit the use.

Max Lenz wrote:

<quoted text>I was talking about and "common sense debate".You obviously have no common sense.The 2nd ammendment refers to a "well regulated militia"Most people with a brain understand that violent convicted criminals should have that right taken away.I probably have more guns than you do but I'm smart enough to understand the 2nd ammendment and it's limitations.Maybe you should read it sometime.

You are wasting your breath.These nut jobs actually believe that dangerous criminals,mental cases and whoever wants one should be able to get one.The funny thing is the Constitution is not on their side no matter how much they wish that it was.LOL

Tom Dutton wrote:

<quoted text>You are wasting your breath.These nut jobs actually believe that dangerous criminals,mental cases and whoever wants one should be able to get one.The funny thing is the Constitution is not on their side no matter how much they wish that it was.LOL

Nice try Tom, bet you think pedophiles @ 2500' from any elementary school are safer than pedophiles @ 2495' away. Show us where the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment says anything about the restriction that Max raised. Can do? Bet you can't, head case.

Tom Dutton wrote:

<quoted text>You are wasting your breath.These nut jobs actually believe that dangerous criminals,mental cases and whoever wants one should be able to get one.The funny thing is the Constitution is not on their side no matter how much they wish that it was.LOL

They can and do get them, that is why we have crime. You seem to forget drug laws that mean nothing to crack heads or any law they are all broken. I promise their is not a law made that has not been broken or has stopped a crime. You have broken laws almost every day. Laws pretty much just provide punishment for a crime but do not stop crime. Why is it states and cities with more gun laws have higher crime than those with less gun laws? Please show me where the word except is in the second amendment (as in except mental cases).

We have a right to defend ourselves, and handguns are easy to carry.

Gun bans only put guns in the hands of criminals and the government. I trust neither.

its unconstitutional....what other explanation is there?

DHR wrote:

Guns suck! I'm sick of seeing guns. They are like smokers. We don't need them.

The right to keep and bear arms is part of the Bill of Rights, not the Bill of Needs...not the Bill of What DHR Thinks You Need.
Yup,those pesky rights and liberties are oh so bad!!!

Everyone has the right to defend their liberty. That is what the second amendment was for. No intelligent person can argue that the bill of rights was to protect government from the people! If guns are banned then only criminals will have guns.