Thd Second Amendment And Smart Guns
-
I'm not I brought that up several times yesterday if you bothered to read. Few Adam lanzas will bother reloading. That would be the domain of contest and recreational shooters which I have no issue with.
Just because he did not does not mean he would not, after all he was dedicated to destruction.
Just because he did not does not mean he would not, after all he was dedicated to destruction.
No he was mad at his mommy for taking his xbox away. Timothy mcveigh was dedicated to destruction, and you're right he might have been a reloader, but the issue here is not solving murder, its making our citizens as safe as possible. As humans its our duty to apply technology to advance our society.
-
Nothing happens overnight don't be dumb. How many years does Paul Ryan's budget plan call for?
Precisely just because they are not banning guns now does not mean they will not try later.
Precisely just because they are not banning guns now does not mean they will not try later.
Christ, really? Extremists will always talk about it. It won't happen, for a bunch of reasons I already mentioned. It certainly won't happen in the near future. It was dropped from the senate bill yesterday.
-
Just because he did not does not mean he would not, after all he was dedicated to destruction.
No he was mad at his mommy for taking his xbox away. Timothy mcveigh was dedicated to destruction, and you're right he might have been a reloader, but the issue here is not solving murder, its making our citizens as safe as possible. As humans its our duty to apply technology to advance our society.
No he was mad at his mommy for taking his xbox away. Timothy mcveigh was dedicated to destruction, and you're right he might have been a reloader, but the issue here is not solving murder, its making our citizens as safe as possible. As humans its our duty to apply technology to advance our society.
”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Ben Franklin
-
Precisely just because they are not banning guns now does not mean they will not try later.
Christ, really? Extremists will always talk about it. It won't happen, for a bunch of reasons I already mentioned. It certainly won't happen in the near future. It was dropped from the senate bill yesterday.
Christ, really? Extremists will always talk about it. It won't happen, for a bunch of reasons I already mentioned. It certainly won't happen in the near future. It was dropped from the senate bill yesterday.
Just because it won't happen in the near future does not mean it will not happen. Have some foresight. Why is it that the country that is currently supplying arms to civilians in countries like Syria and Egypt deems it necessary to try and limit them on its own people
-
No he was mad at his mommy for taking his xbox away. Timothy mcveigh was dedicated to destruction, and you're right he might have been a reloader, but the issue here is not solving murder, its making our citizens as safe as possible. As humans its our duty to apply technology to advance our society.
”Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.” Ben Franklin
-
Just because he did not does not mean he would not, after all he was dedicated to destruction.
No he was mad at his mommy for taking his xbox away. Timothy mcveigh was dedicated to destruction, and you're right he might have been a reloader, but the issue here is not solving murder, its making our citizens as safe as possible. As humans its our duty to apply technology to advance our society.
No he was mad at his mommy for taking his xbox away. Timothy mcveigh was dedicated to destruction, and you're right he might have been a reloader, but the issue here is not solving murder, its making our citizens as safe as possible. As humans its our duty to apply technology to advance our society.
His motives do not change his determination.
-
You're still equating a technological advancement with a loss of liberty. I don't see where it infringes on the second amendment at all. Read: first post.
Just because it is a technological advancement does not mean it comes without flaws. And I already stated that the Government cannot press you into purchasing only one style of weapon. It was right there in the federalist papers quote that I highlighted for you. Not my fault that you did not read it.
-
We could have a larger overall effect on gun deaths in our country by changing our policy on drugs then by way of any gun legislation. A large portion of those who die by gun are typically involved in some form of illicit drug trade. It was shown in the prohibition of alcohol that we were bankrolling the criminal coffers with misguided moral law. The same still applies now.
-
Your solution doesn't perfectly solve the problem.... ITS WORTHLESS!
If the use this technology then eventually we'll all be wrapped in bubble wrap and all sharp objects will be taken from us.
Slippery slope? No. Foresight
-
You're still equating a technological advancement with a loss of liberty. I don't see where it infringes on the second amendment at all. Read: first post.
Just because it is a technological advancement does not mean it comes without flaws. And I already stated that the Government cannot press you into purchasing only one style of weapon. It was right there in the federalist papers quote that I highlighted for you. Not my fault that you did not read it.
Just because it is a technological advancement does not mean it comes without flaws. And I already stated that the Government cannot press you into purchasing only one style of weapon. It was right there in the federalist papers quote that I highlighted for you. Not my fault that you did not read it.
I did and I told you its not in the constitution, is it? And smart guns can be any style. Fail. They already mandated a gun have a safety. This equates to the exact same thing.
-
Just because it is a technological advancement does not mean it comes without flaws. And I already stated that the Government cannot press you into purchasing only one style of weapon. It was right there in the federalist papers quote that I highlighted for you. Not my fault that you did not read it.
I did and I told you its not in the constitution, is it? And smart guns can be any style. Fail. They already mandated a gun have a safety. This equates to the exact same thing.
I did and I told you its not in the constitution, is it? And smart guns can be any style. Fail. They already mandated a gun have a safety. This equates to the exact same thing.
If you wish to buy one great, but you cannot force me to. The previous gun laws on the books already infringe on the constitution but that does not make them right, and that does not mean I have to accept more of them. I already disagree with the 1934 weapons ban because the government seems to feel that it has the ability to use these weapons and us plebes are not good enough. Yet clearly the intention of the founding fathers was that we were to have the same weapons as the ones available to our military.
-
Your solution doesn't perfectly solve the problem.... ITS WORTHLESS!
If the use this technology then eventually we'll all be wrapped in bubble wrap and all sharp objects will be taken from us.
Slippery slope? No. Foresight
Your solution doesn't perfectly solve the problem.... ITS WORTHLESS!
If the use this technology then eventually we'll all be wrapped in bubble wrap and all sharp objects will be taken from us.
Slippery slope? No. Foresight
It does not solve the problem at all. Cry and protest all you want the right is written into our constitution.
-
I did and I told you its not in the constitution, is it? And smart guns can be any style. Fail. They already mandated a gun have a safety. This equates to the exact same thing.
If you wish to buy one great, but you cannot force me to. The previous gun laws on the books already infringe on the constitution but that does not make them right, and that does not mean I have to accept more of them. I already disagree with the 1934 weapons ban because the government seems to feel that it has the ability to use these weapons and us plebes are not good enough. Yet clearly the intention of the founding fathers was that we were to have the same weapons as the ones available to our military.
If you wish to buy one great, but you cannot force me to. The previous gun laws on the books already infringe on the constitution but that does not make them right, and that does not mean I have to accept more of them. I already disagree with the 1934 weapons ban because the government seems to feel that it has the ability to use these weapons and us plebes are not good enough. Yet clearly the intention of the founding fathers was that we were to have the same weapons as the ones available to our military.
Can you buy a gun without a safety?
-
If you wish to buy one great, but you cannot force me to. The previous gun laws on the books already infringe on the constitution but that does not make them right, and that does not mean I have to accept more of them. I already disagree with the 1934 weapons ban because the government seems to feel that it has the ability to use these weapons and us plebes are not good enough. Yet clearly the intention of the founding fathers was that we were to have the same weapons as the ones available to our military.
Can you buy a gun without a safety?
Can you buy a gun without a safety?
yes
-
Can you buy a gun without a safety?
yes
-
Hmm. Yes you are correct.
I know I like to work with facts they are fun.
-
You're interpreting too much into the small paragraph that deals with it. You have no idea what the founding fathers intended. All you have to go off is that very ambiguous paragraph at the beginning of this thread.
-
You're interpreting too much into the small paragraph that deals with it. You have no idea what the founding fathers intended. All you have to go off is that very ambiguous paragraph at the beginning of this thread.
You're interpreting too much into the small paragraph that deals with it. You have no idea what the founding fathers intended. All you have to go off is that very ambiguous paragraph at the beginning of this thread.
I know very well what the intention of the founding fathers was they did us all a favour and wrote them down.
-
Hmm. Yes you are correct.
I know I like to work with facts they are fun.
-
You're interpreting too much into the small paragraph that deals with it. You have no idea what the founding fathers intended. All you have to go off is that very ambiguous paragraph at the beginning of this thread.
I know very well what the intention of the founding fathers was they did us all a favour and wrote them down.
I know very well what the intention of the founding fathers was they did us all a favour and wrote them down.
Except smart gun technology doesn't interfere with the right to keep and bear arms. Not at all.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login