(February 19, 2018 at 2:36 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote:

(February 19, 2018 at 2:25 pm)Shell B Wrote: So you own a blog too? Good for you. Gawd and you're site looks like absolute shite. I don't say that because you're already being a prick. I say that because it needs help. You do realize that slapping a domain name on a site that literally only has public domain documents and none of your original content that I can see, and according to the Library of Congress, doesn't make it any more official, right? So, you think a site that looks like this http://www.comandosupremo.com/the-breda-model-35.html is somehow not as good as yours? Trust me, it's better, and that's a piece I wrote, btw.

It's not a blog, dumbass, it's an archive. We've been putting items online for 25 years now.

So, you take documents and put them online?! Am I supposed to be amazed? That makes you the singlemost informed person in this thread? It makes you so important that no one else can even speak on the topic without being mocked by you? Piss off, you fart. You'll be irrelevant faster than you can say, "stun grenades kill babies."

---

To be honest, I've always thought you were a perfectly fine poster, GS. I'm just dishing out same as you. If you're going to get 'ornery, you can expect some 'orning yourself. I'm probably done here today because I'm exhausted, but if you ever want to have a less insulting discussion, I'm all ears.

(February 19, 2018 at 2:34 pm)Shell B Wrote:

(February 19, 2018 at 2:26 pm)Wyrd of Gawd Wrote: If the government keeps trying to impose all of these gun laws the people in New Hampshire are going to get ticked off and exercise their constitutional right to have a revolution.

[Art.] 2-a. [The Bearing of Arms.] All persons have the right to keep and bear arms in defense of themselves, their families, their property and the state.
December 1, 1982

"[Art.] 10. [Right of Revolution.] Government being instituted for the common benefit, protection, and security, of the whole community, and not for the private interest or emolument of any one man, family, or class of men; therefore, whenever the ends of government are perverted, and public liberty manifestly endangered, and all other means of redress are ineffectual, the people may, and of right ought to reform the old, or establish a new government. The doctrine of nonresistance against arbitrary power, and oppression, is absurd, slavish, and destructive of the good and happiness of mankind.
June 2, 1784"
https://constitution.com/new-hampshire-s...-17842007/

Have you noticed that New Hampshire doesn't have gangs of thug cops shooting people willy-nilly?

No, but the people there don't put up with snowflake BS.  "Live free or die".
Do you live in or near New Hampshire?

---

(February 19, 2018 at 2:37 pm)Tiberius Wrote: Was there a violent revolution when fully automatic weapons were banned? No.

Why should there be one when all people are asking for is better background checks and restrictions to try and prevent mass shootings?

It's perfectly legal to own a fully automatic weapon.  It's not a good idea to walk down the street carrying one  but you can own one and shoot it if you want to spend the money for the ammo.

http://www.guns.com/2017/10/16/photos-fr...ics-video/

https://www.facebook.com/knobcreekgunran...382047158/

Flame throwers are fun.  Our favorite hobby during WWII was burning people alive with them.

Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:You do realize that a majority of the States have the right to bear arms in their Constitutions.  That's not dependent upon the NRA.

You do realize that not everything the NRA does is mandated by the right to bear arms? Buying politicians to the point that the CDC can't even study gun violence, for instance.

---

Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:You do realize that a majority of the States have the right to bear arms in their Constitutions.  That's not dependent upon the NRA.

Well, if not everything is dependent on the NRA I guess no one can reasonably object to what it does do, eh?

(February 19, 2018 at 3:15 pm)Mister Agenda Wrote:

Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:You do realize that a majority of the States have the right to bear arms in their Constitutions.  That's not dependent upon the NRA.

You do realize that not everything the NRA does is mandated by the right to bear arms? Buying politicians to the point that the CDC can't even study gun violence, for instance.

---

Wyrd of Gawd Wrote:You do realize that a majority of the States have the right to bear arms in their Constitutions.  That's not dependent upon the NRA.

Well, if not everything is dependent on the NRA I guess no one can reasonably object to what it does do, eh?

The NRA has the right to petition the government, both Federal and States, under the Federal and all State Constitutions.  So would anyone want to deprive that organization of its constitutional rights?  People who disagree with the NRA can also petition the government for what they want.  That's democracy in action in our country.  

Do you want to limit guns?  There is already all kinds of laws on the books that do that.

Do you want to eliminate guns?  You will have to change the Federal Constitution as well as most of the State Constitutions.   While it's possible to do that it's highly unlikely to happen because even people who aren't one of the 5 million or so NRA members aren't inclined to give up their guns.

Except for conducting mass murder of what use is a rapid fire rifle with high capacity magazines? Has anyone ever had to fight of a rampaging horde of snowshoe rabbits?

(February 19, 2018 at 3:49 pm)Gawdzilla Sama Wrote: Except for conducting mass murder of what use is a rapid fire rifle with high capacity magazines? Has anyone ever had to fight of a rampaging horde of snowshoe rabbits?

Flintlocks are so passé.  And it takes a lot of energy to kill 1,000 men with the jawbone of an ass.  Do you know how long that takes?

If you don't like rapid fire rifles can I use a pistol with a 100 round drum?  https://video.search.yahoo.com/yhs/searc...tion=click

"Right to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and certain accessories--exception--rights to be unalienable.
Section 23. That the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, ammunition, and accessories typical to the normal function of such arms, in defense of his home, person, family and property, or when lawfully summoned in aid of the civil power, shall not be questioned. The rights guaranteed by this section shall be unalienable. Any restriction on these rights shall be subject to strict scrutiny and the state of Missouri shall be obligated to uphold these rights and shall under no circumstances decline to protect against their infringement. Nothing in this section shall be construed to prevent the general assembly from enacting general laws which limit the rights of convicted violent felons or those adjudicated by a court to be a danger to self or others as result of a mental disorder or mental infirmity.

Source: Const. of 1875, Art. II, § 17.

(Amended August 5, 2014)

(2016) Section does not prohibit the state legislature from regulating the possession of firearms by nonviolent felons. State v. Clay, 481 S.W.3d 531 (Mo.)."
http://www.moga.mo.gov/MoStatutes/ConstH...10231.html

Define "Unalienable".

Just because something written 143 years ago should be valid for eternity.

Engrish man, Engrish

A law that defends a stupid archaic and irrational policy  loses all validity  when it comes up against reality .