This is the Reaction Republicans Have to Horrific Gun Violence.

Wow! You must be mentally challenged if that's how you interpreted what I said.

 

You can't support gun control and support the second amendment. Sorry, it is not possible. You never explicitly stated that the second amendment was no longer relevant but it was expressly implied in this statement:

I read that to mean that over 200 years things have changed and that the second amendment is now an antiquated idea that is no longer applicable. And yes, I think that if you asked the founding fathers if the militia should be allowed to have the same weapons as the government, there answer would be YES no matter what the weapons. After all, if King George III had a tank division, I bet they would think they needed tanks of their own to stop the his tyranny.

Does my pointing out that Libya is an example of what can happen in the modern age without the protection afforded by the second amendment to a free society scare you? If you really do support the second amendment, then publicly condemn gun control laws on this forum.

 

To forbid convicted felons or the mentally deranged from legally owning a handgun is not really a bad idea. Nor is the restriction on automatic firearms. Nothing should be as black and white as the debate over gun ownership.

 

You are right it is very black and white. No law should be passed affecting the rights to own any type of gun, ever.

 

I want a couple cruise missiles!

 

Go for it!

 

Can anyone here tell me how this can be considerd a statement for the abolition of your second amendment?

I'm not planning on giving up MY gun.

Now that was posted by Clembo or did you guy's just happen to miss it?

 

Hahahahaha. That's never gonna happen. F all the laws and restrictions on everything. Wanna screw a nine year old? Go ahead. Feel the urge to go 120mph down Moan St.? Sounds good to me.

 

Obviously it was conveniently missed.

 

Not in the least OKC but I DO think you have some SERIOUS issues. Look at what you said.

Giving up the right to life and ceasing breathing pretty much means death as most folks with even an iota of brain understand it.

Your should seriously consider utilizing your iota.

 

So he wants the government to be able to take away other people's guns, but not his own. Once they can ban some weapons, all weapons are on that same table. In other words, his statement does not mean he does not support gun control. Nor does it mean that he supports the second amendment. Never did I say he wants to abolish the second amendment. My position is that any support of gun control legislation violates the second amendment. Once the first violation occurs, subsequent violations become easier and easier.

 

I will not give up a single right that was endowed upon me by my Creator and guaranteed by the Declaration or Constitution unless anti-gun liberals are willing to give up their right to life. God-given rights are equal. If they want me to give up the right to bear arms, I'll ask for their right to life in return. Instead, how about all of us just keeping our rights intact as they stand? That seems reasonable to me.

 

I am defending the Constitution of the United States and you extrapolate that to condone anarchy. Tell me Craig, exactly what phrase in the Bill of Rights gives one the right to sexually abuse a child?

Furthermore, I am glad you brought up the speeding issue. Speeding kills more people every year in the United States than firearms. Why don't they enact a law that requires every vehicle to have a governor that prohibits the vehicle from exceeding 65mph?

 

BINGO! I never stated the second ammendment was no longer relavant yet still you go after what you perceive I "implied". Here's the statement you based this upon.

Then you came back with this?

Thank you. You have just shown your Liberal side Lehigh. If King George had tank divisions then the militia would have thought they needed them too.
If nothing has changed then militias SHOULD Be armed to the teeth. Just in case you know.

Your Libya example doesn't scare me at all it just gives me another thing to think about.
Furthermore stop telling me (or anyone else) what to do on this forum.

As much as you like to say it I am NOT against the Second Amendment. I have NEVER said that we should not have the right to bear arms.

I have stated that I own a gun for home protection and have NO intentions of giving it up so what's the problem? Is it the fact that I don't own enough guns and haven't joined a militia?

Your beef with me on this issue has become beyond silly. Silly to the point of you actually arguing my original statement to my behalf and I mentioned it "might be silly" in the first place.

You're arguing just to argue now. Chasing your own tail as it were.

 

I believe what is really happening here is that you are acting like a little bitch. Toughen up would ya!

 

Lehigh can you show us one single post were Clembo has stated that your goverment should confiscate fierarms?

Your comment So he wants the government to be able to take away other people's guns

As for you saying he wanted to abolish the 2nd amendment you have implied it throught this thread

 

I already addressed this in post #42. IMO, gun control on any level is tantamount to abolishing the second amendment.

 

Our militia does have access to the same weapons as our military. If you mean groups that call themselves militias having tanks and nuclear weapons then I have to disagree.

 

Actually, being a member of a militia is not necessary in order to bear arms.

From Wikipedia:

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two Second Amendment decisions. In District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

I already stated that nobody should have access to nuclear weapons, including the government.