Back when the 2A was written, only wealthy people owned firearms. For you originalists out there.
So it should still be an elitest thing?
You should pay a tax on your hobby to help offset the costs associated with said hobby.
How “responsible” is a gun owner lacking in gainful employment that doesn’t support owning a gun? Guess we should arm the homeless?
The “elitists” were the “well regulated militia.” So the 2A is flexible as nowhere does it mention costs or having to be affordable. Love the hypocrisy. Life is full of choices.
You're the one that said only rich had guns back in the day.
I said "wealthy," not "elitist." Now you're changing it to "rich." What was considered "rich" back in the day? And how did they afford their firearms?
Wanting to have only the wealthy own firearms becomes a status thing where only the elite, rich can own them.
So what do people in other countries do about varmints if they can’t get a hold of an AR15 with a 100 bullet clip? Are rodents and small animals taking over cities?
I don’t own an AR15, but somehow I’m still able to defend my home from raccoons & possums & the like.
Can’t speak for the danger of prairie dogs tho, maybe those are extra vicious?
So what do people in other countries do about varmints if they can’t get a hold of an AR15 with a 100 bullet clip? Are rodents and small animals taking over cities?
So what do people in other countries do about varmints if they can’t get a hold of an AR15 with a 100 bullet clip? Are rodents and small animals taking over cities?
I don’t own an AR15, but somehow I’m still able to defend my home from raccoons & possums & the like.
Can’t speak for the danger of prairie dogs tho, maybe those are extra vicious?
Really? I use landmines mostly
I just thought of the movie Caddyshack and chuckled.
So what do people in other countries do about varmints if they can’t get a hold of an AR15 with a 100 bullet clip? Are rodents and small animals taking over cities?
I don’t own an AR15, but somehow I’m still able to defend my home from raccoons & possums & the like.
Can’t speak for the danger of prairie dogs tho, maybe those are extra vicious?
Really? I use landmines mostly
I do have some pretty ballsy chipmunks moving in... might have to look into this.
So what do people in other countries do about varmints if they can’t get a hold of an AR15 with a 100 bullet clip? Are rodents and small animals taking over cities?
my guard moose takes care of them.
This made me laugh too.
On topic, you don't need/want a 100rd clip. You know how heavy that would be?
Back when the 2A was written, only wealthy people owned firearms. For you originalists out there.
So it should still be an elitest thing?
You should pay a tax on your hobby to help offset the costs associated with said hobby.
How “responsible” is a gun owner lacking in gainful employment that doesn’t support owning a gun? Guess we should arm the homeless?
The “elitists” were the “well regulated militia.” So the 2A is flexible as nowhere does it mention costs or having to be affordable. Love the hypocrisy. Life is full of choices.
You're the one that said only rich had guns back in the day.
I said "wealthy," not "elitist." Now you're changing it to "rich." What was considered "rich" back in the day? And how did they afford their firearms?
Wanting to have only the wealthy own firearms becomes a status thing where only the elite, rich can own them.
I'm asking you what was the level of wealth required to own a firearm "back in the day" of the 2A, seeing how you think only the elitists owned them back then. Yes, in my belief, they were "wealthy." Where in the 2A does it say that firearms have to be affordable? Or that you can't tax them or the ammo? Someone on here thinks micro-stamping is out of the question because of the cost, to which I say up to $250 per gun is not to much of a price to pay to track guns used in crime when no weapon is found and potentially be able to hold straw purchasers "responsible" or "responsible" gun owners accountable when their firearms are used in crimes (half of firearms used in crimes that are recovered are stolen).
The 2A has no language regarding cost of firearms or the ammo. So, the 2A is either flexible to the times or its not. You seem to be an originalists (no bans), which brings me back to how did 'Muricans get and keep their firearms when the 2A was written and how is it that they could afford them? Mass production didn't exist yet. What level of wealth made them "elitists?"
So what do people in other countries do about varmints if they can’t get a hold of an AR15 with a 100 bullet clip? Are rodents and small animals taking over cities?
I don’t own an AR15, but somehow I’m still able to defend my home from raccoons & possums & the like.
Can’t speak for the danger of prairie dogs tho, maybe those are extra vicious?
Gophers and groundhogs can make for a bad day on a farm.
My air rifle and .22 seemed to handle all of those things just fine growing up on the farm. You really get your aiming honed in because you have to get the headshot. I guess my .270 would have done the trick, but that's just stupid.
Back when the 2A was written, only wealthy people owned firearms. For you originalists out there.
So it should still be an elitest thing?
You should pay a tax on your hobby to help offset the costs associated with said hobby.
How “responsible” is a gun owner lacking in gainful employment that doesn’t support owning a gun? Guess we should arm the homeless?
The “elitists” were the “well regulated militia.” So the 2A is flexible as nowhere does it mention costs or having to be affordable. Love the hypocrisy. Life is full of choices.
You're the one that said only rich had guns back in the day.
I said "wealthy," not "elitist." Now you're changing it to "rich." What was considered "rich" back in the day? And how did they afford their firearms?
Wanting to have only the wealthy own firearms becomes a status thing where only the elite, rich can own them.
I'm asking you what was the level of wealth required to own a firearm "back in the day" of the 2A, seeing how you think only the elitists owned them back then. Yes, in my belief, they were "wealthy." Where in the 2A does it say that firearms have to be affordable? Or that you can't tax them or the ammo? Someone on here thinks micro-stamping is out of the question because of the cost, to which I say up to $250 per gun is not to much of a price to pay to track guns used in crime when no weapon is found and potentially be able to hold straw purchasers "responsible" or "responsible" gun owners accountable when their firearms are used in crimes (half of firearms used in crimes that are recovered are stolen).
The 2A has no language regarding cost of firearms or the ammo. So, the 2A is either flexible to the times or its not. You seem to be an originalists (no bans), which brings me back to how did 'Muricans get and keep their firearms when the 2A was written and how is it that they could afford them? Mass production didn't exist yet. What level of wealth made them "elitists?"
All I asked is if you wanted to make gun ownership elitist...
Back when the 2A was written, only wealthy people owned firearms. For you originalists out there.
So it should still be an elitest thing?
You should pay a tax on your hobby to help offset the costs associated with said hobby.
How “responsible” is a gun owner lacking in gainful employment that doesn’t support owning a gun? Guess we should arm the homeless?
The “elitists” were the “well regulated militia.” So the 2A is flexible as nowhere does it mention costs or having to be affordable. Love the hypocrisy. Life is full of choices.
You're the one that said only rich had guns back in the day.
I said "wealthy," not "elitist." Now you're changing it to "rich." What was considered "rich" back in the day? And how did they afford their firearms?
Wanting to have only the wealthy own firearms becomes a status thing where only the elite, rich can own them.
I'm asking you what was the level of wealth required to own a firearm "back in the day" of the 2A, seeing how you think only the elitists owned them back then. Yes, in my belief, they were "wealthy." Where in the 2A does it say that firearms have to be affordable? Or that you can't tax them or the ammo? Someone on here thinks micro-stamping is out of the question because of the cost, to which I say up to $250 per gun is not to much of a price to pay to track guns used in crime when no weapon is found and potentially be able to hold straw purchasers "responsible" or "responsible" gun owners accountable when their firearms are used in crimes (half of firearms used in crimes that are recovered are stolen).
The 2A has no language regarding cost of firearms or the ammo. So, the 2A is either flexible to the times or its not. You seem to be an originalists (no bans), which brings me back to how did 'Muricans get and keep their firearms when the 2A was written and how is it that they could afford them? Mass production didn't exist yet. What level of wealth made them "elitists?"
All I asked is if you wanted to make gun ownership elitist...
But you seem to be unable or unwilling to define “elitist,” particularly in a historical context as it relates to the 2A. Bill Gates is elitist. Someone making $15K or more is not. What’s your definition of elitist and their salary?
Back when the 2A was written, only wealthy people owned firearms. For you originalists out there.
So it should still be an elitest thing?
You should pay a tax on your hobby to help offset the costs associated with said hobby.
How “responsible” is a gun owner lacking in gainful employment that doesn’t support owning a gun? Guess we should arm the homeless?
The “elitists” were the “well regulated militia.” So the 2A is flexible as nowhere does it mention costs or having to be affordable. Love the hypocrisy. Life is full of choices.
You're the one that said only rich had guns back in the day.
I said "wealthy," not "elitist." Now you're changing it to "rich." What was considered "rich" back in the day? And how did they afford their firearms?
Wanting to have only the wealthy own firearms becomes a status thing where only the elite, rich can own them.
I'm asking you what was the level of wealth required to own a firearm "back in the day" of the 2A, seeing how you think only the elitists owned them back then. Yes, in my belief, they were "wealthy." Where in the 2A does it say that firearms have to be affordable? Or that you can't tax them or the ammo? Someone on here thinks micro-stamping is out of the question because of the cost, to which I say up to $250 per gun is not to much of a price to pay to track guns used in crime when no weapon is found and potentially be able to hold straw purchasers "responsible" or "responsible" gun owners accountable when their firearms are used in crimes (half of firearms used in crimes that are recovered are stolen).
The 2A has no language regarding cost of firearms or the ammo. So, the 2A is either flexible to the times or its not. You seem to be an originalists (no bans), which brings me back to how did 'Muricans get and keep their firearms when the 2A was written and how is it that they could afford them? Mass production didn't exist yet. What level of wealth made them "elitists?"
All I asked is if you wanted to make gun ownership elitist...
But you seem to be unable or unwilling to define “elitist,” particularly in a historical context as it relates to the 2A. Bill Gates is elitist. Someone making $15K or more is not. What’s your definition of elitist and their salary?
Whenever you make something unattainable by taxing it to high heaven and only the wealthy can afford it I'd say that would be elitist.
Back when the 2A was written, only wealthy people owned firearms. For you originalists out there.
So it should still be an elitest thing?
You should pay a tax on your hobby to help offset the costs associated with said hobby.
How “responsible” is a gun owner lacking in gainful employment that doesn’t support owning a gun? Guess we should arm the homeless?
The “elitists” were the “well regulated militia.” So the 2A is flexible as nowhere does it mention costs or having to be affordable. Love the hypocrisy. Life is full of choices.
You're the one that said only rich had guns back in the day.
I said "wealthy," not "elitist." Now you're changing it to "rich." What was considered "rich" back in the day? And how did they afford their firearms?
Wanting to have only the wealthy own firearms becomes a status thing where only the elite, rich can own them.
I'm asking you what was the level of wealth required to own a firearm "back in the day" of the 2A, seeing how you think only the elitists owned them back then. Yes, in my belief, they were "wealthy." Where in the 2A does it say that firearms have to be affordable? Or that you can't tax them or the ammo? Someone on here thinks micro-stamping is out of the question because of the cost, to which I say up to $250 per gun is not to much of a price to pay to track guns used in crime when no weapon is found and potentially be able to hold straw purchasers "responsible" or "responsible" gun owners accountable when their firearms are used in crimes (half of firearms used in crimes that are recovered are stolen).
The 2A has no language regarding cost of firearms or the ammo. So, the 2A is either flexible to the times or its not. You seem to be an originalists (no bans), which brings me back to how did 'Muricans get and keep their firearms when the 2A was written and how is it that they could afford them? Mass production didn't exist yet. What level of wealth made them "elitists?"
All I asked is if you wanted to make gun ownership elitist...
But you seem to be unable or unwilling to define “elitist,” particularly in a historical context as it relates to the 2A. Bill Gates is elitist. Someone making $15K or more is not. What’s your definition of elitist and their salary?
Whenever you make something unattainable by taxing it to high heaven and only the wealthy can afford it I'd say that would be elitist.
In but one example, is adding $250 to the cost of a firearm for micro-stamping making it an object only “elitists” can afford?
Back when the 2A was written, only wealthy people owned firearms. For you originalists out there.
So it should still be an elitest thing?
You should pay a tax on your hobby to help offset the costs associated with said hobby.
How “responsible” is a gun owner lacking in gainful employment that doesn’t support owning a gun? Guess we should arm the homeless?
The “elitists” were the “well regulated militia.” So the 2A is flexible as nowhere does it mention costs or having to be affordable. Love the hypocrisy. Life is full of choices.
You're the one that said only rich had guns back in the day.
I said "wealthy," not "elitist." Now you're changing it to "rich." What was considered "rich" back in the day? And how did they afford their firearms?
Wanting to have only the wealthy own firearms becomes a status thing where only the elite, rich can own them.
I'm asking you what was the level of wealth required to own a firearm "back in the day" of the 2A, seeing how you think only the elitists owned them back then. Yes, in my belief, they were "wealthy." Where in the 2A does it say that firearms have to be affordable? Or that you can't tax them or the ammo? Someone on here thinks micro-stamping is out of the question because of the cost, to which I say up to $250 per gun is not to much of a price to pay to track guns used in crime when no weapon is found and potentially be able to hold straw purchasers "responsible" or "responsible" gun owners accountable when their firearms are used in crimes (half of firearms used in crimes that are recovered are stolen).
The 2A has no language regarding cost of firearms or the ammo. So, the 2A is either flexible to the times or its not. You seem to be an originalists (no bans), which brings me back to how did 'Muricans get and keep their firearms when the 2A was written and how is it that they could afford them? Mass production didn't exist yet. What level of wealth made them "elitists?"
All I asked is if you wanted to make gun ownership elitist...
But you seem to be unable or unwilling to define “elitist,” particularly in a historical context as it relates to the 2A. Bill Gates is elitist. Someone making $15K or more is not. What’s your definition of elitist and their salary?
Whenever you make something unattainable by taxing it to high heaven and only the wealthy can afford it I'd say that would be elitist.
We can make the argument that gun ownership is elitist now. Guns are expensive. It's like a guy making $20K/year driving a $50K truck. He can't afford the truck either but he finds a way.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Back when the 2A was written, only wealthy people owned firearms. For you originalists out there.
So it should still be an elitest thing?
You should pay a tax on your hobby to help offset the costs associated with said hobby.
How “responsible” is a gun owner lacking in gainful employment that doesn’t support owning a gun? Guess we should arm the homeless?
The “elitists” were the “well regulated militia.” So the 2A is flexible as nowhere does it mention costs or having to be affordable. Love the hypocrisy. Life is full of choices.
You're the one that said only rich had guns back in the day.
I said "wealthy," not "elitist." Now you're changing it to "rich." What was considered "rich" back in the day? And how did they afford their firearms?
Wanting to have only the wealthy own firearms becomes a status thing where only the elite, rich can own them.
I'm asking you what was the level of wealth required to own a firearm "back in the day" of the 2A, seeing how you think only the elitists owned them back then. Yes, in my belief, they were "wealthy." Where in the 2A does it say that firearms have to be affordable? Or that you can't tax them or the ammo? Someone on here thinks micro-stamping is out of the question because of the cost, to which I say up to $250 per gun is not to much of a price to pay to track guns used in crime when no weapon is found and potentially be able to hold straw purchasers "responsible" or "responsible" gun owners accountable when their firearms are used in crimes (half of firearms used in crimes that are recovered are stolen).
The 2A has no language regarding cost of firearms or the ammo. So, the 2A is either flexible to the times or its not. You seem to be an originalists (no bans), which brings me back to how did 'Muricans get and keep their firearms when the 2A was written and how is it that they could afford them? Mass production didn't exist yet. What level of wealth made them "elitists?"
All I asked is if you wanted to make gun ownership elitist...
But you seem to be unable or unwilling to define “elitist,” particularly in a historical context as it relates to the 2A. Bill Gates is elitist. Someone making $15K or more is not. What’s your definition of elitist and their salary?
Whenever you make something unattainable by taxing it to high heaven and only the wealthy can afford it I'd say that would be elitist.
We can make the argument that gun ownership is elitist now. Guns are expensive. It's like a guy making $20K/year driving a $50K truck. He can't afford the truck either but he finds a way.
Since a few of these people buy the gun pretty close to when they use it on kids and grandmas....they'd just charge it to their credit cards as they aren't going to pay anyhow.
Back when the 2A was written, only wealthy people owned firearms. For you originalists out there.
So it should still be an elitest thing?
You should pay a tax on your hobby to help offset the costs associated with said hobby.
How “responsible” is a gun owner lacking in gainful employment that doesn’t support owning a gun? Guess we should arm the homeless?
The “elitists” were the “well regulated militia.” So the 2A is flexible as nowhere does it mention costs or having to be affordable. Love the hypocrisy. Life is full of choices.
You're the one that said only rich had guns back in the day.
I said "wealthy," not "elitist." Now you're changing it to "rich." What was considered "rich" back in the day? And how did they afford their firearms?
Wanting to have only the wealthy own firearms becomes a status thing where only the elite, rich can own them.
I'm asking you what was the level of wealth required to own a firearm "back in the day" of the 2A, seeing how you think only the elitists owned them back then. Yes, in my belief, they were "wealthy." Where in the 2A does it say that firearms have to be affordable? Or that you can't tax them or the ammo? Someone on here thinks micro-stamping is out of the question because of the cost, to which I say up to $250 per gun is not to much of a price to pay to track guns used in crime when no weapon is found and potentially be able to hold straw purchasers "responsible" or "responsible" gun owners accountable when their firearms are used in crimes (half of firearms used in crimes that are recovered are stolen).
The 2A has no language regarding cost of firearms or the ammo. So, the 2A is either flexible to the times or its not. You seem to be an originalists (no bans), which brings me back to how did 'Muricans get and keep their firearms when the 2A was written and how is it that they could afford them? Mass production didn't exist yet. What level of wealth made them "elitists?"
All I asked is if you wanted to make gun ownership elitist...
But you seem to be unable or unwilling to define “elitist,” particularly in a historical context as it relates to the 2A. Bill Gates is elitist. Someone making $15K or more is not. What’s your definition of elitist and their salary?
Whenever you make something unattainable by taxing it to high heaven and only the wealthy can afford it I'd say that would be elitist.
We can make the argument that gun ownership is elitist now. Guns are expensive. It's like a guy making $20K/year driving a $50K truck. He can't afford the truck either but he finds a way.
I don’t think guns are expensive. Quite the contrary. That’s why I’m pressing but can’t seem to get an answer. Seems the responses of late are all smoke and mirrors or paper tigers. No rational explanation and certainly no alternatives offered. It’s why nothing will change and it’ll happen again. This country is so fucked and this issue, kids being decapitated with assault rifles in their classroom is but one small example of the larger problem with firearms in ‘Murica.
Oh, and Faceturd gives you 10 whoopsies before blocking you for selling your gun on their platform.
Back when the 2A was written, only wealthy people owned firearms. For you originalists out there.
So it should still be an elitest thing?
You should pay a tax on your hobby to help offset the costs associated with said hobby.
How “responsible” is a gun owner lacking in gainful employment that doesn’t support owning a gun? Guess we should arm the homeless?
The “elitists” were the “well regulated militia.” So the 2A is flexible as nowhere does it mention costs or having to be affordable. Love the hypocrisy. Life is full of choices.
You're the one that said only rich had guns back in the day.
I said "wealthy," not "elitist." Now you're changing it to "rich." What was considered "rich" back in the day? And how did they afford their firearms?
Wanting to have only the wealthy own firearms becomes a status thing where only the elite, rich can own them.
I'm asking you what was the level of wealth required to own a firearm "back in the day" of the 2A, seeing how you think only the elitists owned them back then. Yes, in my belief, they were "wealthy." Where in the 2A does it say that firearms have to be affordable? Or that you can't tax them or the ammo? Someone on here thinks micro-stamping is out of the question because of the cost, to which I say up to $250 per gun is not to much of a price to pay to track guns used in crime when no weapon is found and potentially be able to hold straw purchasers "responsible" or "responsible" gun owners accountable when their firearms are used in crimes (half of firearms used in crimes that are recovered are stolen).
The 2A has no language regarding cost of firearms or the ammo. So, the 2A is either flexible to the times or its not. You seem to be an originalists (no bans), which brings me back to how did 'Muricans get and keep their firearms when the 2A was written and how is it that they could afford them? Mass production didn't exist yet. What level of wealth made them "elitists?"
All I asked is if you wanted to make gun ownership elitist...
But you seem to be unable or unwilling to define “elitist,” particularly in a historical context as it relates to the 2A. Bill Gates is elitist. Someone making $15K or more is not. What’s your definition of elitist and their salary?
Whenever you make something unattainable by taxing it to high heaven and only the wealthy can afford it I'd say that would be elitist.
In but one example, is adding $250 to the cost of a firearm for micro-stamping making it an object only “elitists” can afford?
Many a gun would have that firing bin ground down. It's a good idea but not in the grand scheme of things.
Back when the 2A was written, only wealthy people owned firearms. For you originalists out there.
So it should still be an elitest thing?
You should pay a tax on your hobby to help offset the costs associated with said hobby.
How “responsible” is a gun owner lacking in gainful employment that doesn’t support owning a gun? Guess we should arm the homeless?
The “elitists” were the “well regulated militia.” So the 2A is flexible as nowhere does it mention costs or having to be affordable. Love the hypocrisy. Life is full of choices.
You're the one that said only rich had guns back in the day.
I said "wealthy," not "elitist." Now you're changing it to "rich." What was considered "rich" back in the day? And how did they afford their firearms?
Wanting to have only the wealthy own firearms becomes a status thing where only the elite, rich can own them.
I'm asking you what was the level of wealth required to own a firearm "back in the day" of the 2A, seeing how you think only the elitists owned them back then. Yes, in my belief, they were "wealthy." Where in the 2A does it say that firearms have to be affordable? Or that you can't tax them or the ammo? Someone on here thinks micro-stamping is out of the question because of the cost, to which I say up to $250 per gun is not to much of a price to pay to track guns used in crime when no weapon is found and potentially be able to hold straw purchasers "responsible" or "responsible" gun owners accountable when their firearms are used in crimes (half of firearms used in crimes that are recovered are stolen).
The 2A has no language regarding cost of firearms or the ammo. So, the 2A is either flexible to the times or its not. You seem to be an originalists (no bans), which brings me back to how did 'Muricans get and keep their firearms when the 2A was written and how is it that they could afford them? Mass production didn't exist yet. What level of wealth made them "elitists?"
All I asked is if you wanted to make gun ownership elitist...
But you seem to be unable or unwilling to define “elitist,” particularly in a historical context as it relates to the 2A. Bill Gates is elitist. Someone making $15K or more is not. What’s your definition of elitist and their salary?
Whenever you make something unattainable by taxing it to high heaven and only the wealthy can afford it I'd say that would be elitist.
We can make the argument that gun ownership is elitist now. Guns are expensive. It's like a guy making $20K/year driving a $50K truck. He can't afford the truck either but he finds a way.
I don’t think guns are expensive. Quite the contrary. That’s why I’m pressing but can’t seem to get an answer. Seems the responses of late are all smoke and mirrors or paper tigers. No rational explanation and certainly no alternatives offered. It’s why nothing will change and it’ll happen again. This country is so fucked and this issue, kids being decapitated with assault rifles in their classroom is but one small example of the larger problem with firearms in ‘Murica.
Oh, and Faceturd gives you 10 whoopsies before blocking you for selling your gun on their platform.
You go off on tangents...
A few of us have offered solutions many a time but like you said, this is why nothing changes.
Back when the 2A was written, only wealthy people owned firearms. For you originalists out there.
So it should still be an elitest thing?
You should pay a tax on your hobby to help offset the costs associated with said hobby.
How “responsible” is a gun owner lacking in gainful employment that doesn’t support owning a gun? Guess we should arm the homeless?
The “elitists” were the “well regulated militia.” So the 2A is flexible as nowhere does it mention costs or having to be affordable. Love the hypocrisy. Life is full of choices.
You're the one that said only rich had guns back in the day.
I said "wealthy," not "elitist." Now you're changing it to "rich." What was considered "rich" back in the day? And how did they afford their firearms?
Wanting to have only the wealthy own firearms becomes a status thing where only the elite, rich can own them.
I'm asking you what was the level of wealth required to own a firearm "back in the day" of the 2A, seeing how you think only the elitists owned them back then. Yes, in my belief, they were "wealthy." Where in the 2A does it say that firearms have to be affordable? Or that you can't tax them or the ammo? Someone on here thinks micro-stamping is out of the question because of the cost, to which I say up to $250 per gun is not to much of a price to pay to track guns used in crime when no weapon is found and potentially be able to hold straw purchasers "responsible" or "responsible" gun owners accountable when their firearms are used in crimes (half of firearms used in crimes that are recovered are stolen).
The 2A has no language regarding cost of firearms or the ammo. So, the 2A is either flexible to the times or its not. You seem to be an originalists (no bans), which brings me back to how did 'Muricans get and keep their firearms when the 2A was written and how is it that they could afford them? Mass production didn't exist yet. What level of wealth made them "elitists?"
All I asked is if you wanted to make gun ownership elitist...
But you seem to be unable or unwilling to define “elitist,” particularly in a historical context as it relates to the 2A. Bill Gates is elitist. Someone making $15K or more is not. What’s your definition of elitist and their salary?
Whenever you make something unattainable by taxing it to high heaven and only the wealthy can afford it I'd say that would be elitist.
In but one example, is adding $250 to the cost of a firearm for micro-stamping making it an object only “elitists” can afford?
Many a gun would have that firing bin ground down. It's a good idea but not in the grand scheme of things.
Not easy to do for a novice, it’s one more thing to stem the illicit market and it’s not just the firing pin that can be stamped to leave a trace.
How many parts of your car have the vin number or a sequence of letters or numbers that if found, can trace back to the original point of sale, who owned it and the chain of ownership? All because of hit and runs.
Back when the 2A was written, only wealthy people owned firearms. For you originalists out there.
So it should still be an elitest thing?
You should pay a tax on your hobby to help offset the costs associated with said hobby.
How “responsible” is a gun owner lacking in gainful employment that doesn’t support owning a gun? Guess we should arm the homeless?
The “elitists” were the “well regulated militia.” So the 2A is flexible as nowhere does it mention costs or having to be affordable. Love the hypocrisy. Life is full of choices.
You're the one that said only rich had guns back in the day.
I said "wealthy," not "elitist." Now you're changing it to "rich." What was considered "rich" back in the day? And how did they afford their firearms?
Wanting to have only the wealthy own firearms becomes a status thing where only the elite, rich can own them.
I'm asking you what was the level of wealth required to own a firearm "back in the day" of the 2A, seeing how you think only the elitists owned them back then. Yes, in my belief, they were "wealthy." Where in the 2A does it say that firearms have to be affordable? Or that you can't tax them or the ammo? Someone on here thinks micro-stamping is out of the question because of the cost, to which I say up to $250 per gun is not to much of a price to pay to track guns used in crime when no weapon is found and potentially be able to hold straw purchasers "responsible" or "responsible" gun owners accountable when their firearms are used in crimes (half of firearms used in crimes that are recovered are stolen).
The 2A has no language regarding cost of firearms or the ammo. So, the 2A is either flexible to the times or its not. You seem to be an originalists (no bans), which brings me back to how did 'Muricans get and keep their firearms when the 2A was written and how is it that they could afford them? Mass production didn't exist yet. What level of wealth made them "elitists?"
All I asked is if you wanted to make gun ownership elitist...
But you seem to be unable or unwilling to define “elitist,” particularly in a historical context as it relates to the 2A. Bill Gates is elitist. Someone making $15K or more is not. What’s your definition of elitist and their salary?
Whenever you make something unattainable by taxing it to high heaven and only the wealthy can afford it I'd say that would be elitist.
In but one example, is adding $250 to the cost of a firearm for micro-stamping making it an object only “elitists” can afford?
Many a gun would have that firing bin ground down. It's a good idea but not in the grand scheme of things.
Not easy to do for a novice, it’s one more thing to stem the illicit market and it’s not just the firing pin that can be stamped to leave a trace.
How many parts of your car have the vin number or a sequence of letters or numbers that if found, can trace back to the original point of sale, who owned it and the chain of ownership? All because of hit and runs.
Nothing can be done. Nothing. Any excuse. Any.
Every gun leaves a signature as it is.
We've offered other solutions.
If microstamping made you feel better then I say go for it.
make ammunition illegal. nothing in the constitution about ammunition.
Gun owners are bitching and moaning about ammo shortages, high cost. Imagine the outrage if ammo became illegal! Not that I'm against the idea, but it would drive supplies underground and create a whole new kind of mafia or whatever.
The only sensible solution is to get people to stop being so hateful and paranoid and angry. But sadly, we're going the opposite direction of that. My own solution is to avoid people as much as possible I've become quite the hermit these days.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
Back when the 2A was written, only wealthy people owned firearms. For you originalists out there.
So it should still be an elitest thing?
You should pay a tax on your hobby to help offset the costs associated with said hobby.
How “responsible” is a gun owner lacking in gainful employment that doesn’t support owning a gun? Guess we should arm the homeless?
The “elitists” were the “well regulated militia.” So the 2A is flexible as nowhere does it mention costs or having to be affordable. Love the hypocrisy. Life is full of choices.
You're the one that said only rich had guns back in the day.
I said "wealthy," not "elitist." Now you're changing it to "rich." What was considered "rich" back in the day? And how did they afford their firearms?
Wanting to have only the wealthy own firearms becomes a status thing where only the elite, rich can own them.
I'm asking you what was the level of wealth required to own a firearm "back in the day" of the 2A, seeing how you think only the elitists owned them back then. Yes, in my belief, they were "wealthy." Where in the 2A does it say that firearms have to be affordable? Or that you can't tax them or the ammo? Someone on here thinks micro-stamping is out of the question because of the cost, to which I say up to $250 per gun is not to much of a price to pay to track guns used in crime when no weapon is found and potentially be able to hold straw purchasers "responsible" or "responsible" gun owners accountable when their firearms are used in crimes (half of firearms used in crimes that are recovered are stolen).
The 2A has no language regarding cost of firearms or the ammo. So, the 2A is either flexible to the times or its not. You seem to be an originalists (no bans), which brings me back to how did 'Muricans get and keep their firearms when the 2A was written and how is it that they could afford them? Mass production didn't exist yet. What level of wealth made them "elitists?"
All I asked is if you wanted to make gun ownership elitist...
But you seem to be unable or unwilling to define “elitist,” particularly in a historical context as it relates to the 2A. Bill Gates is elitist. Someone making $15K or more is not. What’s your definition of elitist and their salary?
Whenever you make something unattainable by taxing it to high heaven and only the wealthy can afford it I'd say that would be elitist.
In but one example, is adding $250 to the cost of a firearm for micro-stamping making it an object only “elitists” can afford?
Many a gun would have that firing bin ground down. It's a good idea but not in the grand scheme of things.
Not easy to do for a novice, it’s one more thing to stem the illicit market and it’s not just the firing pin that can be stamped to leave a trace.
How many parts of your car have the vin number or a sequence of letters or numbers that if found, can trace back to the original point of sale, who owned it and the chain of ownership? All because of hit and runs.
Nothing can be done. Nothing. Any excuse. Any.
Every gun leaves a signature as it is.
We've offered other solutions.
If microstamping made you feel better then I say go for it.
I'm not sure you understand the technology or the reason behind it but I'm not the one that needs convincing. Its the "responsible" gun owners that do. When you say "we," who are the we that you refer to as having offered other solutions? I haven't read much of any rational solutions from the pro-gun crowd on here. Wish I could create a 20 question poll with yes/no/maybe/don't know options.
As for the signature? I agree, the size and shape of the entrance and exit wound.
make ammunition illegal. nothing in the constitution about ammunition.
Gun owners are bitching and moaning about ammo shortages, high cost. Imagine the outrage if ammo became illegal! Not that I'm against the idea, but it would drive supplies underground and create a whole new kind of mafia or whatever.
The only sensible solution is to get people to stop being so hateful and paranoid and angry. But sadly, we're going the opposite direction of that. My own solution is to avoid people as much as possible I've become quite the hermit these days.
true. when both politicians and the media profit off division, there really isn't much hope until everyone wakes up.
Back when the 2A was written, only wealthy people owned firearms. For you originalists out there.
So it should still be an elitest thing?
You should pay a tax on your hobby to help offset the costs associated with said hobby.
How “responsible” is a gun owner lacking in gainful employment that doesn’t support owning a gun? Guess we should arm the homeless?
The “elitists” were the “well regulated militia.” So the 2A is flexible as nowhere does it mention costs or having to be affordable. Love the hypocrisy. Life is full of choices.
You're the one that said only rich had guns back in the day.
I said "wealthy," not "elitist." Now you're changing it to "rich." What was considered "rich" back in the day? And how did they afford their firearms?
Wanting to have only the wealthy own firearms becomes a status thing where only the elite, rich can own them.
I'm asking you what was the level of wealth required to own a firearm "back in the day" of the 2A, seeing how you think only the elitists owned them back then. Yes, in my belief, they were "wealthy." Where in the 2A does it say that firearms have to be affordable? Or that you can't tax them or the ammo? Someone on here thinks micro-stamping is out of the question because of the cost, to which I say up to $250 per gun is not to much of a price to pay to track guns used in crime when no weapon is found and potentially be able to hold straw purchasers "responsible" or "responsible" gun owners accountable when their firearms are used in crimes (half of firearms used in crimes that are recovered are stolen).
The 2A has no language regarding cost of firearms or the ammo. So, the 2A is either flexible to the times or its not. You seem to be an originalists (no bans), which brings me back to how did 'Muricans get and keep their firearms when the 2A was written and how is it that they could afford them? Mass production didn't exist yet. What level of wealth made them "elitists?"
All I asked is if you wanted to make gun ownership elitist...
But you seem to be unable or unwilling to define “elitist,” particularly in a historical context as it relates to the 2A. Bill Gates is elitist. Someone making $15K or more is not. What’s your definition of elitist and their salary?
Whenever you make something unattainable by taxing it to high heaven and only the wealthy can afford it I'd say that would be elitist.
In but one example, is adding $250 to the cost of a firearm for micro-stamping making it an object only “elitists” can afford?
Many a gun would have that firing bin ground down. It's a good idea but not in the grand scheme of things.
Not easy to do for a novice, it’s one more thing to stem the illicit market and it’s not just the firing pin that can be stamped to leave a trace.
How many parts of your car have the vin number or a sequence of letters or numbers that if found, can trace back to the original point of sale, who owned it and the chain of ownership? All because of hit and runs.
Nothing can be done. Nothing. Any excuse. Any.
Every gun leaves a signature as it is.
We've offered other solutions.
If microstamping made you feel better then I say go for it.
I'm not sure you understand the technology or the reason behind it but I'm not the one that needs convincing. Its the "responsible" gun owners that do. When you say "we," who are the we that you refer to as having offered other solutions? I haven't read much of any rational solutions from the pro-gun crowd on here. Wish I could create a 20 question poll with yes/no/maybe/don't know options.
As for the signature? I agree, the size and shape of the entrance and exit wound.
Again, we have offered solutions, not what you like and you said NO, so we move on.
Every guns firing pin and barreling has unique signature marking already, some states require that you register these rifling's when you purchase your gun and some do not. Needless to say they already have a signature.
I think the microstamping looks great on paper.
I'd go after the 21yo purchasing and owning, red flag laws, holding owners responsible for unlocked guns and a waiting list.
And Maryland, come on down! You may be the next contestant on Lax Gun Laws Lead to A Mass Shooting! Which will it be? Door #1, a screen door? Door #2, a glass door or Door #3, a three foot thick, reinforced steel door with ballistic plating with vertical and horizontal locking mechanisms?
i read a few days ago that there was a potential bill that would have the tax rate for ammo for weapons like the ar-15 be 1000%. I can get behind that. you want to shoot up a place, you better run up your credit card first.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
i read a few days ago that there was a potential bill that would have the tax rate for ammo for weapons like the ar-15 be 1000%. I can get behind that. you want to shoot up a place, you better run up your credit card first.
Like that would stop them? Credit card debt don’t mean shit when you’re dead or in jail.
i read a few days ago that there was a potential bill that would have the tax rate for ammo for weapons like the ar-15 be 1000%. I can get behind that. you want to shoot up a place, you better run up your credit card first.
Like that would stop them? Credit card debt don’t mean shit when you’re dead or in jail.
it would stop the teenage shooters, who are doing most of the school shootings. because they would not have a credit card, and a parent would probably think twice about spending so much money on ammo without asking some serious questions.
"You can tell the greatness of a man by what makes him angry." - Lincoln
Comments
www.headstonesband.com
On topic, you don't need/want a 100rd clip. You know how heavy that would be?
The 2A has no language regarding cost of firearms or the ammo. So, the 2A is either flexible to the times or its not. You seem to be an originalists (no bans), which brings me back to how did 'Muricans get and keep their firearms when the 2A was written and how is it that they could afford them? Mass production didn't exist yet. What level of wealth made them "elitists?"
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
https://twitter.com/briantylercohen/status/1534656875790077953?s=21&t=WNwrcTKvQty5JavIV7N0hg
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Wrigley; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
www.headstonesband.com
Oh, and Faceturd gives you 10 whoopsies before blocking you for selling your gun on their platform.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
A few of us have offered solutions many a time but like you said, this is why nothing changes.
How many parts of your car have the vin number or a sequence of letters or numbers that if found, can trace back to the original point of sale, who owned it and the chain of ownership? All because of hit and runs.
Nothing can be done. Nothing. Any excuse. Any.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
We've offered other solutions.
If microstamping made you feel better then I say go for it.
Gun owners are bitching and moaning about ammo shortages, high cost. Imagine the outrage if ammo became illegal! Not that I'm against the idea, but it would drive supplies underground and create a whole new kind of mafia or whatever.
As for the signature? I agree, the size and shape of the entrance and exit wound.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
www.headstonesband.com
Every guns firing pin and barreling has unique signature marking already, some states require that you register these rifling's when you purchase your gun and some do not. Needless to say they already have a signature.
I think the microstamping looks great on paper.
I'd go after the 21yo purchasing and owning, red flag laws, holding owners responsible for unlocked guns and a waiting list.
Libtardaplorable©. And proud of it.
Brilliantati©
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."