A common sense gun law...

0  2018-02-24 by Putin_loves_cats

If you believe in (or try to make) any "laws" or "regulations" that infringes on the 2nd amendment of the US Constitution, which is:

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

You should be deported for treason and held accountable under International Law, for violating Natural Law. But, don't worry... You will be given the opportunity to become a citizen of any nation which has strict gun laws * terms and conditions apply.

How is that for a common sense gun law :)

59 comments

11  cMayz 2018-02-24

It's there a conspiracy here I'm missing?

4  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

Yes, TPTB are conspiring to get useful idiots to disarm themselves (and everyone else unwilling) willingly.

3  ignoremsmedia 2018-02-24

Yeah I have seen some Twitter posts of dismantled AR15's and people saying it's your turn etc.

This virtue signalling is so retarded.

2  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

I agree. Also, you know they are just doing it to get the endorphin rush from the likes and retweets. It's like when people take pictures of their food, but, don't post pictures of their shits after eating it. The former gets likes, the latter? Not so much...

-2  ignoremsmedia 2018-02-24

Hmmm shitposts lol!

3  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

You sir, are wrong!

8  [deleted] 2018-02-24

[deleted]

5  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

Because the latter, is the former, and the most important part. Regulated does not mean "government/authoritative" regulation/oversight, as people know it today to mean (per - definitions 3 and 4) . It means well equipped and trained, which was the responsibility of the individual(s), not the government.

Furthermore, the language is "progressive" and "vague" by design, which is why some of the founders were pure geniuses, yet so many people shit on them. For example, what is Arms (in bear Arms)?

What is ARMS?

Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at or strike at another. Co. Litt. 1616, 162a; State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18. This term, as it Is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siegegun, and mortar, with side arms. The term, in this connection, cannot be made to cover such weapons as dirks, daggers, slung-shots, sword- canes, brass knuckles, and bowieknives. These are not military arms. English v. State, 35 Tex. 476, 14 Am. Rep. 374; Hill v. State, 53 Ga. 472; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am. Rep. 556; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 170, 8 Am. Rep. 8; Aymette v. State, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 154.

This means, as technology advances, Arms means the people shall have the same access to the common infantry soldier, because they are to supplement them, if needed.

Founding Fathers, FTW. Not the Federalists, though. I hope they are rotting in hell...

These documents, and such are written on a 26+ year reading level. What is the average reading level of Americans, these days? Hell, what is the reading level for "educated" Americans, these days?

1  hrccbr1000rr 2018-02-24

I am a well regulated militia of one, as well all gun owners are.

5  1-800-GOFUCKYOURSELF 2018-02-24

There is no gun law. There is just the gun, and the law. Neither one is needed for each other.

6  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

As much you would like to think what you said was profound, it wasn't, I'm sorry...

6  1-800-GOFUCKYOURSELF 2018-02-24

You're just not drunk enough yet, you'll get there.

5  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

You know what?

3  aleister 2018-02-24

The night is still young in bear country.

edit: it cracks me up this is the most controversial comment in the thread at this point.

2  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

Indeed!

3  aleister 2018-02-24

Toast Bro.

4  Fritz721 2018-02-24

Just for fun here though,should any 18 year old be able to purchase an M249 machine gun?

6  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

Of course, if that is the agreed upon age of majority, in which one can enter into contract. The chances of them actually killing someone with it is very, very low. Do we punish everyone, because of the small minority of bad actors? No, we don't or I should say... we shouldn't.

1  Fritz721 2018-02-24

Ok, at least your consistent.

3  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

That's what I strive for!

2  aleister 2018-02-24

No? But it comes with caveats.

1  Fritz721 2018-02-24

Not saying I don’t think that would be beneficial, I just don’t think it’s practical.

That would come at a tremendous cost to local/state/federal government.

The entire nation shouldn’t have to pay because a certain segment of the population wants to look badass in FB/Instagram posts.

2  aleister 2018-02-24

(Did you happen to notice I linked my post agreeing with you)?

2  Fritz721 2018-02-24

No I did re: age. You just referenced that you thought OP (in linked post) was onto something and the phrasing of your comment made me think you were saying to take it a step further.

That’s all I meant with my response. I feel like what was referenced would be great but it’s just overkill for something that doesn’t need to be an issue.

I know quite a few enthusiastic gun owners, but the reality is, guns like AR-15s are a hobby for them, it’s for show and for fun. If someone is defending their home, wouldn’t a shotgun be a better option?

You can buy a bolt action rifle to hunt.

I’m all for gun ownership and I plan to purchase one for home defense, but I would be curious to see the stats on successful home defenses utilizing AR-15s vs AR-15 used homicides per year.

2  aleister 2018-02-24

There are guns designed to put holes in objects and there are guns designed to put holes through objects. Coicidentially, tonight there is a news story and amazing video of two armed women defending a store from a degenerate. Count the number of bullets they put in him and ask yourself why he's still walking around.

The fact is that I'm as entitled to arm myself in any way I see fit. No one would question if I did so with my armed security guards or the natural preference I get from the police for being a notable contributor to the Sheriff's Office.

There are a lot of people with a lot of big weapons and the ones most dependent on the state are arguing that we should give them more power. Yet, those same communities are being artificially supplied with guns and killing each other to the tune of 50 people every week...for the past 10 years...in a "gun free zone"...and no one seems to care about that. 21 people were shot at Mardi Gras. Where's the vigil and prayers?

2  Fritz721 2018-02-24

Are you saying gun reform cedes more power to the government? I’m unclear on what you’re trying to say in the beginning of your third paragraph.

1  aleister 2018-02-24

There are a lot of people with a lot of big weapons and the ones most dependent on the state are arguing that we should give them more power.

Are you saying gun reform cedes more power to the government?

I am saying that, but I'm also acknowledging that the government isn't the only game in town with big weapons. There are other heavily armed operators out there and if you don't have the option to arm yourself then you're just collateral.

1  Squirrelboy85 2018-02-24

I can't even imagine an 18 y/o lugging that around.

2  no1113 2018-02-24

I'll upvote that, sir.

2  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

And I'll upvote that, sir!

2  Bossdelgado 2018-02-24

Oh Jesus man better lock them guns up. The Clinton jackboots are gonna come instal sharia law into your house and take all your guns!

2  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

Clintons are pawns.

1  RocketSurgeon22 2018-02-24

Great idea. Since we have no law enforcement like FBI or Sheriffs to enforce gun laws....we might as well have ICE as the governing agency.

-1  russianbot01 2018-02-24

Just make California a gun free state and all the Big Brother lovers can move there and leave the other 49 states that respect the Constitution alone.

6  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

Not drastic enough. I'm talking about taking this country back to it's founding. If they would like to leave the voluntary compact, that would be fine, though...

0  Deaconblues18 2018-02-24

When the Constitution was written they had muskets and fucking flintlock pistols. Held one shot. Someone who was REALLY efficient with them might get off 3 or 4 rounds a minute. I love people talking about “getting back to” and Originalism, etc. If you dropped James Madison, Ben Franklin, and all into the middle of Times Square right now their fucking heads would explode. Fuck guns that fire a hundred rounds a minute.

1  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

Deported!

That said, see this comment of mine, here.

5  Deaconblues18 2018-02-24

You can have all the sword-canes you want. Again: fuck guns that fire a hundred rounds a minute.

1  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

Whoosh.

Deported!

0  MagsNfragS 2018-02-24

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

The founding fathers weren't idiots, they knew that weapons are always evolving into something better and more efficient at killing. Otherwise we would still be shooting arrows into each other or throwing rocks. That is why they referred to them as "arms" in the bill of rights.

1  HelperBot_ 2018-02-24

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 152875

1  Deaconblues18 2018-02-24

Bullshit. They didn’t envision the kinda stuff we have today. Fuck guns that fire a hundred rounds a minute.

1  MagsNfragS 2018-02-24

You really think the founding fathers couldn't envision a repeating rifle? Science fiction writers were using ray guns, nuclear bombs and lasers in their writing before they were ever invented. The Chinese had repeating crossbows in the 14th century and there are multiple inventions for multi-shot firearms in the early 18th century. Far before the revolutionary war and the bill of rights. It's not exactly farfetched to think that the greatest minds of the time were thinking of the future when they wrote what they did. Even the average soldier probably thought, "hey wouldn't it be nice if I didn't have to load my rifle everytime I pulled the triggger?".

2  Deaconblues18 2018-02-24

Fuck guns that fire a hundred rounds a minute.

1  MagsNfragS 2018-02-24

I agree, fuck guns that fire a hundred round a minute when i can't own one and my government can.

1  Deaconblues18 2018-02-24

Exactly

1  no1113 2018-02-24

CA has a shit ton of guns. Don't you know this is where the West side gangs started? Yeah...a shit ton of guns.

-1  billynlex 2018-02-24

All this conversation and zero post karma. State of r/conspiracy

-1  JamesColesPardon 2018-02-24

They should just try and Repeal It.

It will fail, and benefit nobody in 2018 or 2020 politically.

So, waste your time instead.

2  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

I'm not sure how that is relevant to what I said? Clarification is needed...

0  JamesColesPardon 2018-02-24

Repeal the 2A. You know. The original [common sense] Gun Law?

1  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

Yeah, still not understanding what you're trying to say. You should try to speak less vaguely, James. You used to be more succinct, what happened ;) ?

0  JamesColesPardon 2018-02-24

Are seriously arguing that my comment of:

Repeal the 2A

Is too vague?

It's like... two words?

0  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

I'm not understanding why we would? Like, what the fuck James? Have you been hitting the bottle or something?

0  JamesColesPardon 2018-02-24

I thought you wanted Common Sense gun laws.

Doesn't that involve repealing 2A?

-1  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

Doesn't that involve repealing 2A?

Um, no? Dude, give it up already. Why are you shitting vagueness on my thread, acting like an intellectual or something? You're not, no matter how much you think you are. It's kind of cringe worthy, tbh...

1  JamesColesPardon 2018-02-24

Enjoy your thread and it's success.

See you around.

-1  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

K.

3  ignoremsmedia 2018-02-24

Yeah I have seen some Twitter posts of dismantled AR15's and people saying it's your turn etc.

This virtue signalling is so retarded.

2  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

I agree. Also, you know they are just doing it to get the endorphin rush from the likes and retweets. It's like when people take pictures of their food, but, don't post pictures of their shits after eating it. The former gets likes, the latter? Not so much...

5  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

Because the latter, is the former, and the most important part. Regulated does not mean "government/authoritative" regulation/oversight, as people know it today to mean (per - definitions 3 and 4) . It means well equipped and trained, which was the responsibility of the individual(s), not the government.

Furthermore, the language is "progressive" and "vague" by design, which is why some of the founders were pure geniuses, yet so many people shit on them. For example, what is Arms (in bear Arms)?

What is ARMS?

Anything that a man wears for his defense, or takes in his hands, or uses in his anger, to cast at or strike at another. Co. Litt. 1616, 162a; State v. Buzzard, 4 Ark. 18. This term, as it Is used in the constitution, relative to the right of citizens to bear arms, refers to the arms of a militiaman or soldier, and the word is used in its military sense. The arms of the infantry soldier are the musket and bayonet; of cavalry and dragoons, the sabre, holster pistols, and carbine; of the artillery, the field-piece, siegegun, and mortar, with side arms. The term, in this connection, cannot be made to cover such weapons as dirks, daggers, slung-shots, sword- canes, brass knuckles, and bowieknives. These are not military arms. English v. State, 35 Tex. 476, 14 Am. Rep. 374; Hill v. State, 53 Ga. 472; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455, 25 Am. Rep. 556; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. (Tenn.) 170, 8 Am. Rep. 8; Aymette v. State, 2 Humph. (Tenn.) 154.

This means, as technology advances, Arms means the people shall have the same access to the common infantry soldier, because they are to supplement them, if needed.

Founding Fathers, FTW. Not the Federalists, though. I hope they are rotting in hell...

These documents, and such are written on a 26+ year reading level. What is the average reading level of Americans, these days? Hell, what is the reading level for "educated" Americans, these days?

-1  Putin_loves_cats 2018-02-24

Doesn't that involve repealing 2A?

Um, no? Dude, give it up already. Why are you shitting vagueness on my thread, acting like an intellectual or something? You're not, no matter how much you think you are. It's kind of cringe worthy, tbh...

1  HelperBot_ 2018-02-24

Non-Mobile link: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Puckle_gun

HelperBot v1.1 /r/HelperBot_ I am a bot. Please message /u/swim1929 with any feedback and/or hate. Counter: 152875

1  hrccbr1000rr 2018-02-24

I am a well regulated militia of one, as well all gun owners are.

1  Deaconblues18 2018-02-24

Bullshit. They didn’t envision the kinda stuff we have today. Fuck guns that fire a hundred rounds a minute.