Breaking - Gunman opens fire during college event at California bar - At Least 12 Dead

The source is Facebook .The company released it.

 

We've already been doing that for 20 years now.

Unconstitutional.

That might pass muster in some states. But voters in other states like their large magazines.

We've been doing that for the past 50 years.

Yes you are. Just a few lines up you proposed banning AR style weapons.

 

No it actually hangs around the interpretation of the second amendment. But that is not what I am seeing as responses on discussion boards. What i am seeing with the more ardent proponents, is a belief that everyone should have the right to own and use a gun, there should be no impediments at any time or place and most concerningly that a gun owner is automatically the good guy

 

This is exactly why we need to keep voting for Trump. The left pretends that our rights do not exist and tries to violate them. Trump protects our rights.

 

Al; options means Nuke response is on the table. Hence the word, ALL.

 

Silly, we all ready have limits imposed on citizens from owning many arms.
Claymores, grenades, etc. There's many citizens can't own. Even though the constitution places no limits on arms.

 

If you have a link please share it.

 

I wonder how much more pointless bloodshed will happen before America does the logical thing.

Probably a lot more.. :/

 

The above mentioned items are not arms, they are ordnance. There is a significant difference between the two standards.

 

I would say there isn’t. Arms means arms - there’s nothing to specify it means only guns. Where are you getting that?

 

Arms and ordnance are not interchangeable. Firearms are not ordnance, while devices such as claymore mines are. Ordnance involves an explosive charge that deals indiscriminate damage to a wide area, while firearms are far more precise in how they are utilized, and can be used to eliminate a single target in a crowd, rather than the entire crowd itself.

 

Limits are allowed if they can be justified with a good reason and are not so strict that they prevent self defense.

That is far different from liberals maliciously trying to violate our rights by imposing unjustifiable gun bans.

 

Care to provide some sort of Constitutional evidence for this?
I thought the whole idea of the 2nd Amendment was to provide an inalienable right for a citizen to protect themselves? Arms can mean many things - for example; “nuclear arms”. Stating simply how you interpret the word does not in fact preclude the other well know understanding of the word “arms”

 

Many members of the "Gun Lobby" advocate giving AR-15s to newborn babies (so the infant doesn't develop a lifelong complex about having their 2nd Amendment Rights violated).

2A is as 2A does.

 

1. A weapon, especially a firearm: troops bearing arms; ICBMs, bombs, and other nuclear arms.
https://www.thefreedictionary.com/arms

Nope, by definition, a weapon.

 

All a matter of opinion.
Society will determine what is or is not unjustifiable.

 

We used to drop nukes on our own troops. Don't think they won't drop one on you.

 

The mass shooters and would-be bomber were white guys.

 

No your claim that these have been done for fifty years is proof you cannot have an honest discussion.

 

Proved you don't know what you are talking about. Suggest you don't keep demonstrating the fact.

 

Thank heavens for thoughts and prayers. Otherwise action might be required. God ain't done nothing so far but keep praying to the empty sky.

 

OK, Which of my nonsensical claims would you like me to support with data. Please be specific if you can think that coherently! And if it is not too much trouble for you I would appreciate your documenting my claims by referencing the actual post number where I made the claim.

 

Aren't bulletts ordinance??

 

Like debating with a moron! Feel free to join the institutional escapees.