Hurry and pass gun control before we have time to read it!

tww wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:



How about studies that show cars, bicycles, bats, dogs, trampolines, lawnmowers, stairs, ramps, scissors and knives were used to commit mass murders?



Attempting to procreate & cooking aren't banned in on-campus married housing (just the opposite), but guess what is... that's right, guns.

But that wasn't your point. Your point was a home is safer when a gun isn't around. And you weren't talking about married housing, you were talking about a physical location, the church. Keep backpeddlin' and running in circles.



And if married on-campus housing defines your limitations and your standards, you've got issues. And guess who never lived in such housing... that's right, BroncoBot. Hey, if you don't want a gun in your home, that's your choice of course. But when known crooks (yeah, I'm looking at you Holder) are telling responsible people who have committed no crime to give up their guns the government has taken it too far.

How about gas or fire or airplanes or fertilizer? All used for mass murder but not banned.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

So you are saying that banning guns will have little effect on ones ability to hunt or protect themselves from the government since they can just use these other non banned items to kill.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

1967cougar wrote:

Why can I not get the phrase "hang by a thread" out of my head?

That is a very interesting topic - the U.S. Constitution hanging by a thread. The prophecy was made by Joseph Smith in 1843, though, it was not made public until after his death. There are different versions, as recalled by people who were there when J.S. made the original comment.



"Elder Orson Hyde of the Council of the Twelve was present when Joseph Smith made that prophecy, but he made a slight variation in his report ~



"It is said that brother Joseph in his lifetime declared that the Elders of this Church should step forth at a particular time when the Constitution would be in danger, and rescue it, and save it. This may be so; but I do not recollect that he said exactly so. I believe he said something like this - "If the Constitution be saved at all, it will be by the Elders of this Church." I believe this is about the language, as nearly as I can recollect it."



Let's take another look at the 2nd Amendment:

"Amendment II

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."



So, knowing the Constitution will be in peril - "If the Constitution be saved at all ..." How do you gun control proponents square your gun control efforts with the 2nd Amendment, knowing it will weaken the Constitution - contributing to it's collapse - as prophesied by Joseph Smith. You just don't care?

cornhole153 wrote:

BroncoBot wrote:

How about studies that show cars, bicycles, bats, dogs, trampolines, lawnmowers, stairs, ramps, scissors and knives were used to commit mass murders?



Attempting to procreate & cooking aren't banned in on-campus married housing (just the opposite), but guess what is... that's right, guns.

But that wasn't your point. Your point was a home is safer when a gun isn't around. And you weren't talking about married housing, you were talking about a physical location, the church. Keep backpeddlin' and running in circles.



And if married on-campus housing defines your limitations and your standards, you've got issues. And guess who never lived in such housing... that's right, BroncoBot. Hey, if you don't want a gun in your home, that's your choice of course. But when known crooks (yeah, I'm looking at you Holder) are telling responsible people who have committed no crime to give up their guns the government has taken it too far.

How about gas or fire or airplanes or fertilizer? All used for mass murder but not banned.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

So you are saying that banning guns will have little effect on ones ability to hunt or protect themselves from the government since they can just use these other non banned items to kill.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Why would anyone want to defend their home by blowing it up and possibly killing their loved ones at the same time? You know exactly what tww was pointing out and are just playing dumb now.

Faking retardation? :lol: :whistle:

"The beauty of the Second Amendment is that it will not be needed until they try to take it."

Thomas Jefferson

BroncoBot wrote:

tww wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:



How about studies that show cars, bicycles, bats, dogs, trampolines, lawnmowers, stairs, ramps, scissors and knives were used to commit mass murders?



Attempting to procreate & cooking aren't banned in on-campus married housing (just the opposite), but guess what is... that's right, guns.

But that wasn't your point. Your point was a home is safer when a gun isn't around. And you weren't talking about married housing, you were talking about a physical location, the church. Keep backpeddlin' and running in circles.



And if married on-campus housing defines your limitations and your standards, you've got issues. And guess who never lived in such housing... that's right, BroncoBot. Hey, if you don't want a gun in your home, that's your choice of course. But when known crooks (yeah, I'm looking at you Holder) are telling responsible people who have committed no crime to give up their guns the government has taken it too far.

How about gas or fire or airplanes or fertilizer? All used for mass murder but not banned.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

So you are saying that banning guns will have little effect on ones ability to hunt or protect themselves from the government since they can just use these other non banned items to kill.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Why would anyone want to defend their home by blowing it up and possibly killing their loved ones at the same time? You know exactly what tww was pointing out and are just playing dumb now.

Good point, I guess there really is no substitute for guns. Simply put if you take away guns it will be much tougher to protect yourself from the government and hunt--animals and people.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

cornhole153 wrote:
Good point, I guess there really is no substitute for guns. Simply put if you take away guns it will be much tougher to protect yourself from the government and hunt--animals and people.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Thank you for finally admitting that you don't want to simply control guns. You want to take them away. Thank you for admitting you don't actually believe in the Constitution or the rights of the people it sets out. You only believe in those with power to rule how they wish. Thank you for finally admitting you don't actually believe in freedom.

SpiffCoug wrote:

Good point, I guess there really is no substitute for guns. Simply put if you take away guns it will be much tougher to protect yourself from the government and hunt--animals and people.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Thank you for finally admitting that you don't want to simply control guns. You want to take them away. Thank you for admitting you don't actually believe in the Constitution or the rights of the people it sets out. You only believe in those with power to rule how they wish. Thank you for finally admitting you don't actually believe in freedom.

You forgot that I admitted to being a communist and that I worship the devil.



Do you think the right to bear arms includes tanks, missles, drones, nuclear and biological weapons? If not, why?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:
Good point, I guess there really is no substitute for guns. Simply put if you take away guns it will be much tougher to protect yourself from the government and hunt--animals and people.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Thank you for finally admitting that you don't want to simply control guns. You want to take them away. Thank you for admitting you don't actually believe in the Constitution or the rights of the people it sets out. You only believe in those with power to rule how they wish. Thank you for finally admitting you don't actually believe in freedom.

You forgot that I admitted to being a communist and that I worship the devil.



Do you think the right to bear arms includes tanks, missles, drones, nuclear and biological weapons? If not, why?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Your post is very illuminating - you revert to the ridiculous, non-serious, and laughable.



First off, if you desire to worship the devil and be a card carrying communist, that is your Constitutional right. No one will infringe on that. Have at it.



Secondly, as to owning missiles, biological weapons, etc. I would love to see you standing face to face with James Madison (Father of the Constitution), Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, etc. - and present your arguments against the 2nd Amendment. I would love to video that short discussion and post it on YouTube.



Their response would be direct and to the point: "Sir, you are in error, and a buffoon. Have a nice day."

This topic has gotten a little off track, so lets keep it focused on the original intent.



Is it better to have cops without guns stopping mass shooters or cops with guns.

Ddawg wrote:

SpiffCoug wrote:

Good point, I guess there really is no substitute for guns. Simply put if you take away guns it will be much tougher to protect yourself from the government and hunt--animals and people.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Thank you for finally admitting that you don't want to simply control guns. You want to take them away. Thank you for admitting you don't actually believe in the Constitution or the rights of the people it sets out. You only believe in those with power to rule how they wish. Thank you for finally admitting you don't actually believe in freedom.

You forgot that I admitted to being a communist and that I worship the devil.



Do you think the right to bear arms includes tanks, missles, drones, nuclear and biological weapons? If not, why?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Your post is very illuminating - you revert to the ridiculous, non-serious, and laughable.



First off, if you desire to worship the devil and be a card carrying communist, that is your Constitutional right. No one will infringe on that. Have at it.



Secondly, as to owning missiles, biological weapons, etc. I would love to see you standing face to face with James Madison (Father of the Constitution), Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, etc. - and present your arguments against the 2nd Amendment. I would love to video that short discussion and post it on YouTube.



Their response would be direct and to the point: "Sir, you are in error, and a buffoon. Have a nice day."

Awesome post.



But I would like know if you think there are limits to your 2nd amendment rights to arming yourself? For example is that right curtailed a bit for public safety reasons? If the 2nd Amendment is suppose to protect us against today's army don't we need to have much more powerful weaponry?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

hawkwing wrote:
This topic has gotten a little off track, so lets keep it focused on the original intent.



Is it better to have cops without guns stopping mass shooters or cops with guns.

I thought the original questions was: Is it better to make it really easy for psychos to get all manner of guns and killing instruments or not?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

cornhole153 wrote:

This topic has gotten a little off track, so lets keep it focused on the original intent.



Is it better to have cops without guns stopping mass shooters or cops with guns.

I thought the original questions was: Is it better to make it really easy for psychos to get all manner of guns and killing instruments or not?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

If you think that's what this thread is about, it's easy to see why it got off track.

cornhole153 wrote:

But I would like know if you think there are limits to your 2nd amendment rights to arming yourself? For example is that right curtailed a bit for public safety reasons? If the 2nd Amendment is suppose to protect us against today's army don't we need to have much more powerful weaponry?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I don't even know why I'm responding.



Limits? yes. That certainly shouldn't include rifles of any type, high capacity magazines, and all the other "scary" features of today's weapons that the left is so paranoid about.



Is it curtailed because of public safety reasons? perhaps, but is the public served by bannning "assault rifles". Very little evidence to support that, especially when faced with the numbers of people actually killed every year by "assault rifles" or rifles in general. Nearly negligible.



Will having such assault rifles in our possession stop an "army"? Certainly not, but having over 100M armed citizens would make any power hungry fool (foreign or domestic) think twice about attempting to turn America into a dictatorship.

cornhole153 wrote:

This topic has gotten a little off track, so lets keep it focused on the original intent.



Is it better to have cops without guns stopping mass shooters or cops with guns.

I thought the original questions was: Is it better to make it really easy for psychos to get all manner of guns and killing instruments or not?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Actually there were no original questions. The original post was to point out that people are so eager to pass gun control that they are behaving recklessly and causing a whole series of unintended consequences. This lack of a police exemption in the NY law likely would have been avoided if the NY legislature hadn't ignored their own rules and voted on a bill before the mandatory reading/waiting period had elapsed. It's likely the lack of police exemption would have been noticed and included in the bill.



But the NY legislature was responding emotionally - and not thinking rationally - and didn't take the time to do this right.



Thinking about ways to keep guns out of psychos will not be accomplished by reacting emotionally.

I am willing to concede the data indicating increased deaths in homes that own pistols (not rifles btw).



Are you willing to concede gun control in nazi germany, soviet Russia, and communist china led to about 75 million murders?



If so please continue enlightening us regarding the case for limiting access to firearms for potential militia members.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

cornhole153 wrote:



Do you think the right to bear arms includes tanks, missles, drones, nuclear and biological weapons? If not, why not?

This one is easy. Tanks, missiles, and drones yes. Nukes and biologicals no.



Individuals (and governments) must be able to defend themselves from others without causing damage to innocent bystanders. Drones and tanks are just big cars and remote control planes and missiles are just very fast planes. It is impossible not to kill innocents with nukes and biologicals.



Oh I have a question for you cornhole. If individuals do not possess the right to own and keep weapons how can government have the right to possess weapons? Do you believe that government derives its rights and powers from the people or do you think the government derives its powers from some other font?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

BroncoBot wrote:

But I would like know if you think there are limits to your 2nd amendment rights to arming yourself? For example is that right curtailed a bit for public safety reasons? If the 2nd Amendment is suppose to protect us against today's army don't we need to have much more powerful weaponry?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

I don't even know why I'm responding.



Limits? yes. That certainly shouldn't include rifles of any type, high capacity magazines, and all the other "scary" features of today's weapons that the left is so paranoid about.



Is it curtailed because of public safety reasons? perhaps, but is the public served by bannning "assault rifles". Very little evidence to support that, especially when faced with the numbers of people actually killed every year by "assault rifles" or rifles in general. Nearly negligible.



Will having such assault rifles in our possession stop an "army"? Certainly not, but having over 100M armed citizens would make any power hungry fool (foreign or domestic) think twice about attempting to turn America into a dictatorship.

Another thing to keep in mind that seems frequently forgotten is that the 2nd amendment, as with all constitutional issues, the directive of "shall not infringe" is directed at the federal government. In other words the federal government was intended to have no jurisdiction on the the subject of firearms. All issues of discretion or how "well regulated" militias are to be was intended to be a topic for individual states to decide.

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:
Good point, I guess there really is no substitute for guns. Simply put if you take away guns it will be much tougher to protect yourself from the government and hunt--animals and people.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Thank you for finally admitting that you don't want to simply control guns. You want to take them away. Thank you for admitting you don't actually believe in the Constitution or the rights of the people it sets out. You only believe in those with power to rule how they wish. Thank you for finally admitting you don't actually believe in freedom.

You forgot that I admitted to being a communist and that I worship the devil.



Do you think the right to bear arms includes tanks, missles, drones, nuclear and biological weapons? If not, why?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Your post is very illuminating - you revert to the ridiculous, non-serious, and laughable.



First off, if you desire to worship the devil and be a card carrying communist, that is your Constitutional right. No one will infringe on that. Have at it.



Secondly, as to owning missiles, biological weapons, etc. I would love to see you standing face to face with James Madison (Father of the Constitution), Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, etc. - and present your arguments against the 2nd Amendment. I would love to video that short discussion and post it on YouTube.



Their response would be direct and to the point: "Sir, you are in error, and a buffoon. Have a nice day."

Awesome post.



But I would like know if you think there are limits to your 2nd amendment rights to arming yourself? For example is that right curtailed a bit for public safety reasons? If the 2nd Amendment is suppose to protect us against today's army don't we need to have much more powerful weaponry?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Exactly what do you do? Are you a student? What year in school? If not, what kind of work do you do? I'm curious, what state do you live in?

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:

cornhole153 wrote:
Good point, I guess there really is no substitute for guns. Simply put if you take away guns it will be much tougher to protect yourself from the government and hunt--animals and people.



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Thank you for finally admitting that you don't want to simply control guns. You want to take them away. Thank you for admitting you don't actually believe in the Constitution or the rights of the people it sets out. You only believe in those with power to rule how they wish. Thank you for finally admitting you don't actually believe in freedom.

You forgot that I admitted to being a communist and that I worship the devil.



Do you think the right to bear arms includes tanks, missles, drones, nuclear and biological weapons? If not, why?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Your post is very illuminating - you revert to the ridiculous, non-serious, and laughable.



First off, if you desire to worship the devil and be a card carrying communist, that is your Constitutional right. No one will infringe on that. Have at it.



Secondly, as to owning missiles, biological weapons, etc. I would love to see you standing face to face with James Madison (Father of the Constitution), Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, George Washington, etc. - and present your arguments against the 2nd Amendment. I would love to video that short discussion and post it on YouTube.



Their response would be direct and to the point: "Sir, you are in error, and a buffoon. Have a nice day."

Awesome post.



But I would like know if you think there are limits to your 2nd amendment rights to arming yourself? For example is that right curtailed a bit for public safety reasons? If the 2nd Amendment is suppose to protect us against today's army don't we need to have much more powerful weaponry?



[ Post made via Mobile Device ] http://cougarcorner.com/images/mobile.png" alt="" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%">

Please show me in the 2nd Amendment where is states that it's purpose is to protect us against today's army? That's someone's interpretation, and not expressly stated.



Here's the point - what you or I think is not really important. It's merely an exercise in expressing personal opinion. What really matters is what the courts think - especially the U.S. Supreme Court.



We've already discussed how Washington DC banned all handguns in 1976. The gun ban is called the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975, but, it wasn't passed until Sept. 1976.



The law was very restrictive. It banned owning all handguns from 1976 on. Any handguns registered before 1976 must be unloaded, disassembled, and have a trigger lock installed. Essentially, a paperweight. Useless for personal defense if attacked in your home. That law stood for 32 years, until 2008.



In 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled the District of Columbia gun ban unconstitutional. The majority decision ruled that the 2nd Amendment has two parts.

1. A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.

2. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.



Also, the majority SCOTUS decision held that the DC ban violated a citizens right to lawfully protect themselves. Also, requiring that a firearm be disassembled and locked with a trigger guard violates this basic right to own a firearm, for the purpose of self defense. Hence, as a U.S. citizen, per 2008 District of Columbia vs. Heller, you can own a handgun, and a lawful firearm in your home for protection.



Now, the question is - what is a lawful firearm? In the landmark case U.S. vs. Cruikshank, 1875, it was held that the 2nd Amendment applies to the U.S. Federal govt. and restricts their ability to restrict firearm ownership - not the individual State's ability to restrict gun ownership.



The reality is, gun laws vary considerably state to state. Both New York and California are very restrictive. I believe there are 39 states that, if you are 21 yrs. old, and register with the ATF, you can own a fully automatic machine gun. To include NV, AZ, UT, CO, TX, ID, MT, etc. The list goes on.



So, the reality is, this 2nd Amendment battle will be fought on a state by state basis. The liberal states will pass the most restrictive laws. It's a given. The more Conservative "red states" will be more supportive of gun ownership, to include CCW laws, and assault type weapon ownership. It's just that simple.