Have all the anti-gun-rights twits finished starting new threads?

You sounded so confident that you will be able to protect yourself. What kind of gun do you own?

 

All ONE of them eh.

I've posted dozens.

The current system IS the 22,000 regulation we already have and no it's not working. It's not working because limits, laws, restrictions and regulations have not do not and never will prevent someone bent on murder from committing murder. Which has already been illegal for a very long time BTW.


So...which of the 22,000 existing firearms regulations would you like to throw out?

 

Delusional self serving unsubstantiated nonsense.

 

This from the poster boy of no facts and delusion.

Under what authority would your "mandatory handgun buyback" be conducted? Reality check: the Constitution trumps EVERYTHING and you can't simply wish it into the cornfield because you don't like it. http://youtu.be/_C34g5mz1ZQ?t=23s And even if you could, only a total loon would "think" criminals would comply.

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER
In sum, we hold that the District’s ban on handgun possession in the home violates the Second Amendment
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

As for your militia nonsense, here's another part of that ruling you can't simply wish into the cornfield:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, et al., PETITIONERS v. DICK ANTHONY HELLER
Reading the Second Amendment as protecting only the right to “keep and bear Arms” in an organized militia therefore fits poorly with the operative clause’s description of the holder of that right as “the people”.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html

Spare us your "musket" illogic. James Madison, the Father of the Constitution himself, intended for the Second Amendment to keep a national military force in check, if need be. Your ignorance and denial can't negate the fact that what Madison wrote here is as valid today as it was when written. Which means, dipshit, that it makes the case for the peoples' right to keep and bear MODERN arms.

Federalist No. 46
Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger. The highest number to which, according to the best computation, a standing army can be carried in any country, does not exceed one hundredth part of the whole number of souls; or one twenty-fifth part of the number able to bear arms. This proportion would not yield, in the United States, an army of more than twenty-five or thirty thousand men. To these would be opposed a militia amounting to near half a million of citizens with arms in their hands, officered by men chosen from among themselves, fighting for their common liberties, and united and conducted by governments possessing their affections and confidence. It may well be doubted, whether a militia thus circumstanced could ever be conquered by such a proportion of regular troops.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46

 

ROFL! This one's priceless! With so many "gang members armed to the teeth" your solution is to disarm law abiding citizens by wishing the Second Amendment into the cornfield so it's even easier for predators to prey on victims? Or do you think gang members will turn in their weapons too during your mandatory buyback?

 

I never expected anything else from you. Silence speaks volumes here.

 

Is this a trick question or are you just a dumbass?

 

Calling Red Duke, IshopatKroger and futurecurrrents (who has me on ignore)

You three guys should be the ones masterdebating each other.

Red Duke wants to ban all long guns except side by sides, which includes futurecurrents lever action 30-30.

futurecurrents wants to ban anything with more than a five round capacity and all handguns, which includes Red Duke's 9mm

(if I'm not mistaken)The grocery store guy wants to ban all firearms including Red Duke and futturecurrent's firearms.

So instead of bloviating with me and the others, who are not advocating taking away ANY law abiding citizen's rights.

You should be disusing amongst yourselves as to which of your proposed infringements on the 2nd amendment you unanimously agree to implement.

You guys are your own worst enemies, and you don't even realize it.

 

He doesn't own any.

 

Federalist papers were a propaganda tool advocating for the ratification of Constitution after it was written and adopted. One of the issues of the day was the fear that Federal government will overpower the states, (laughable I know). Madison here is trying to assuage those fears.

He talked about a large standing federal army to ridicule the fears of people who thought federal governments could overpower the states not as a concept in and of itself. Militia in the 2nd amendment talks about protection of the country (from outside forces) not protection from federal government.

Section I article 8 also talks about calling up a militia. There is absolutely no reason to talk about a militia when you want people to have an individual right.