Thread: Al Hoffman Jr. a RINO donor, to support attack on 2nd Amendment

Originally Posted by jtdc

It doesn't say an arsenal!

But the purpose was for military (militia) use. At that time the U.S. had no standing military!

The Constitution provided the means to create a standing army, while still protecting the rights of the people and the states to keep and bear arms. Our founders were not stupid people.

Originally Posted by jtdc

There is a difference between a gun used for target practice or hunting and one designed to kill a lot of people! Semi-automatics are certainly not for sport hunting. Where's the sport?

.

It's not about sport. It's about the people being well armed in order to protect themselves from and oppressive and immoral government. Stop with your Fifth Column deflections, obfuscations and deflections.


JWK




Without a Fifth Column Media, Yellow Journalism and a corrupted FBI, Loretta Lynch, Hillary Clinton and Barack Hussein Obama, would be making license tags in a federal penitentiary

Originally Posted by jtdc

So you're taken to name calling!

No. I'm assessing your intentional mischaracterizations, deflections and obfuscations.


JWK

Originally Posted by Judy

So what is it you want? You want to ban guns and arms??

No! And I have already said that!

Originally Posted by Judy

You think the Second Amendment is only there to guarantee your wife a little revolver in her purse?

No! It also guarantees your husband the right to a little revolver in his purse!

Originally Posted by Judy

And that's after she goes through all the infringement of checks, history, suitability, interference, evaluations etc., etc., decided by the ..... FBI?

So you prefer that anybody, like this Florida shooter, should be able to get any weapon he wants and any quantity? Any law is going to inconvenience someone.

Originally Posted by Judy

I like the 2nd Amendment just the way it is. And to me gun control including background checks violate it. Gun control doesn't hurt killers, it hurts the people they kill.

What the Second Amendment says is different to different people. That is because those who wrote it did not agree. So they reached a compromise which is open to interpretation.

As I pointed out, there used to be gunfights in the streets. Some towns, then, came up with bans of guns within city limits. The gunfights abated. Most laws are compromises to protect one's rights by limiting the rights of another.

Originally Posted by MW

Some folks do use AR-15's for specific hunting situations. I personally know a guy that uses one in West Texas to kill hogs because he kills them in mass. They show up in groups of 20, 30 or more. and damage his crops, hay pastures, kill fawns, etc. The weapon carries the large ammunition capacity he desires to dispatch large numbers of hogs quickly (or so he tells me). However, that being said, I still don't think a semi-automatic weapon that holds 20 or more rounds should be made available to the average Joe.

Hunting, in general, like fishing, requires a permit, a license. And the license or permit usually has limitation as to the weapon used. Weapons are tools. For the slaughter of a group of hogs, a pee-shooter would not be adequate. But a semiautomatic is not the appropriate tool for most other instances (other than to criminals).

Originally Posted by MW

What other situation would a large ammo capacity weapon be used for?

Military!

Originally Posted by Judy

The Constitution provided the means to create a standing army, while still protecting the rights of the people and the states to keep and bear arms.

And that standing army was soon created alleviating the need for a military armed public! You have adopted the mentality of politicians who enact a "temporary tax" for an emergency, then never get rid of it!

Originally Posted by johnwk

It's not about sport. It's about the people being well armed in order to protect themselves from and oppressive and immoral government.

Hopefully We The People, will vote for people we can trust not to get us to a place where we need to go to war with our own government, and impeach those who are incompetent or corrupt. Our country already went through a civil war where family members were killing family members because of political differences. This country was founded by a rebellion against an oppressive government. If we let it get to the point where citizens need to be armed to take on our government's military, we will have already lost what this country is about!

Originally Posted by johnwk

Stop with your Fifth Column deflections, obfuscations and deflections.

You can't just present your arguments. You are so insecure in your beliefs that you have to name-call as a way to make yourself feel superior. You aren't!

Originally Posted by johnwk

No. I'm assessing your intentional mischaracterizations, deflections and obfuscations.

Well, why didn't you just say so in the first place?

Originally Posted by jtdc

And that standing army was soon created alleviating the need for a military armed public! You have adopted the mentality of politicians who enact a "temporary tax" for an emergency, then never get rid of it!

You need to read the Declaration of Independence.

If you want to go beyond a standard gun ownership rights/license, then you should be req'd to meet a certain standard -"certifications" to use semi auto 20-30 rounders with annual re-certs; e.g., sans criminal record, multiple police calls, age, mental issues, mental meds, behaviour treatment, etc. In this age of "ISSUES" autism, adhd, ptsd, abound, there must be a line drawn where you do not meet the criteria necessary for such a firearm. If you get off on killing multiple wild hogs, that is your problem.