No ma'am, I won't register my guns

unsung wrote:

I approve of federal law when the Constitution allows it. Don't try changing what I've said.

I just think it's hypocritical to approve of a federal legal document but disapprove of federal law making. why should one piece of paper, hundreds of years old, trump another? to me that's the same as holding the bible as the one true law ver batim.

this thread scares the living daylights out of me.

Id love to know why someone would want to own a semi automatic weapon.

pdalowsky wrote:

this thread scares the living daylights out of me.

Id love to know why someone would want to own a semi automatic weapon.

Pretty much every gun is semi automatic.

pdalowsky wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

pdalowsky wrote:

this thread scares the living daylights out of me.

Id love to know why someone would want to own a semi automatic weapon.

if you find out Paul something logical ,please let me know..

its amazing isnt it? because its a right theres a view that its essential. Its just insane.

the right to bare arms would be better....issue vests

This is coming from two people, judging from your locations, aren't even American citizens...

RustyShackelford wrote:

pdalowsky wrote:

dimitrispearljam wrote:

if you find out Paul something logical ,please let me know..

its amazing isnt it? because its a right theres a view that its essential. Its just insane.

the right to bare arms would be better....issue vests

This is coming from two people, judging from your locations, aren't even American citizens...

Yet, they're well aware we have a gun problem.

rearviewross wrote:

unsung wrote:

I approve of federal law when the Constitution allows it. Don't try changing what I've said.

The Constitution is not written in stone. It is a living breathing document that can and has been changed(amended).

It is not living and breathing. You completely contradict yourself. That saying is one of broken liberal ideology and very false. If it were living and breathing the interpretation would change from the original intent. Since it can not there is the amendment process with is the correct way to make changes.

pdalowsky wrote:

RustyShackelford wrote:

pdalowsky wrote:

oh of course, that makes our opinions invalid. of course, how silly of us, carry on.

I agree with you to a point. Why have semi auto when you can have FULLY Automatic.

the sad thing is i dont even believe you are joking....

You are correct. I was not joking. With proper documentation you can aquire fully automatic weapons.

pdalowsky wrote:

im aware of what can be bought, i was more referring to your suggestion that it would be stupid to buy semi when you can buy fully.....

that kind of mentality is out of my comprehension.

When you have 100s of acres of land at your disposal and no civilizaiton around for miles you need to have things to do to pass the time. Just a hobby. You guys collect vinyl, I collect other things.

unsung wrote:

rearviewross wrote:

unsung wrote:

I approve of federal law when the Constitution allows it. Don't try changing what I've said.

The Constitution is not written in stone. It is a living breathing document that can and has been changed(amended).

It is not living and breathing. You completely contradict yourself. That saying is one of broken liberal ideology and very false. If it were living and breathing the interpretation would change from the original intent. Since it can not there is the amendment process with is the correct way to make changes.

OK, semantics. The point being it can be amended. It has been amended and it was made that way intentionally by design because the founding fathers knew the world would be changing and things that made sense in 1776 would not make sense 1976. They had no idea what would change but they knew changes would need to be made.

That is why it can be amended.

I don't put much faith, if any, in the SC to make a correct decision. A federal court can't be trusted to rule against Congress, and there have been many instances that they have sided in what Congress demands. The SC should defend liberty of the smallest minority, the individual, but there are many times that it doesn't.