OT. MY wife, Sleuth, Detective, and Badass*

In case it wasn't clear, my point was that (before there were snowflakes) America trusted her schoolkids with firearms, and it seems to have worked out fine AFAIK.

Other countries ruling classes don't trust their subjects / citizens with arms, a fact which our founders noted and provisioned against.

Cheers, James Arthur

Of course. The bulk of the violence is in big cities. They're virtually all Democrat.

The welfare society mentality is very destructive.

Cheers, James Arthur

The amendment start "A well regulated militia...". I don't think the NRA meets that criterion.

So gun control is working? That was over a lot sooner than anyone ever figured.

You mean when a gun store sells 50 rifles to one customer, who returns in a month or so to buy another 50, that's just someone exercising their rights?

Maybe they should confiscate ignorance. I think that is the most dangerous of all.

--

Rick C

Did you ever watch Jim Jefferies presentation? I think he nails the matter with pin point precision.

There is no weapon you are currently allowed to have that would allow you to last more than 15 minutes if you were in revolt against the government. To think the second amendment is still a useful means of ridding ourselves of an oppressive government is absurd.

To make it more clear... you would be bringing rifles to a drone fight!

--

Rick C

The right to firearm ownership is not restricted to militias, as the Federalist Papers clearly explain for anyone who cares to read them. But all able-bodied men of military age belonged to the militia then, so it's a distinction without a difference anyway.

America's founders were horrified that other countries rulers had disarmed and subjugated their citizens, and were keen on that not happening here.

It's really not a problem; guns are a vital safeguard of liberty, and more than pay their costs on a regular basis.

Cheers, James Arthur

The problem is that you're misusing the term "assault rifle."

Of course. If John S. buys a bunch of rifles, how on earth does that concern me? It doesn't.

If so, you shouldn't be allowed to possess so much of it!

Grins, James

Tell that to Irag, Afghanistan, Vietnam, etc.

Why are you so intent on telling other people what they can't do?

And if your answer is that you don't trust your fellow Americans, why on EARTH would you trust *politicians* more?

Cheers, James Arthur

??? I didn't use the term "assault rifle", you did.

It doesn't concern you that someone repeatedly buys quantities of rifles and handguns which clearly means they are being sold outside of any means of tracking them... like to criminals.

--

Rick C

What does that mean?

When did I tell anyone what to do? Others might tell you what weapons you can't have just like they do already. You can't own a machine gun without a *lot* of red tape. A friend of mine who used to collect guns talks about coming across Japanese machine guns that were not properly de-wadded. Even then, some 60 years ago they about shit a brick to have one. Fortunately they knew someone who could dispose of it without questions being asked.

Politicians typically don't carry guns.

--

Rick C

Have you ever taken a rudimentary English course?

They've been "banned" since 1935, moron. It's possible to get licensed to own pre-1935 weapons but it's very exensive with all sorts of onerous restrictions.

You're making shit up. When lefties have no arguement, they just make shit up.

You'd be in deep trouble.

No, *you* misused the term with your asinine comeback.

No. Your fantasies don't really bother me. I'm sure when Obama actually does it, you're just fine with it, though.

When you're a leftie, that's what you do.

See above.

You're the one who tried to link "gun control" to this bogus chimera.

It doesn't concern me at all. The gal could be selling bunches on Craigslist.

We used to be able to buy guns in hardware stores or from the Sears catalog, no checks, no nothin', no problems.

If she were selling to criminals, that's illegal--by all means prosecute. But you don't get to convict prima facie, that's called 'prior restraint,' and *that* is illegal.

Cheers, James Arthur

Yep. The rifles called "assault rifles" by the ignoranti aren't assault rifles at all. They're ordinary rifles, intentionally mislabeled by politicians.

Cheers, James Arthur

Which bogus chimera? You seem to be very confused. You used the term "assault rifle" then accuse me of misusing it. What???

How many mass shootings did you have then?

No one convicting prima facie. That, again, is *YOUR* straw man. "Prior restraint" doesn't prevent you from passing laws saying what is and isn't illegal. The people buying dozens of guns at a time *are* selling to criminals or others who can't legally buy guns. Why do you

*want* guns to be in the hands of the wrong people? Or do you believe there are no wrong people to have guns?

Have you looked for Jim Jefferies' video? It's great! I'm sure you will love it. Part of it speaks directly to you.

--

Rick C

Guns have been banned? I'm pretty sure that's not true in the US.

What shit is being made up?

--

Rick C

You really are that dense.

How many do you have now? Gun violence is only up over the last couple of years, because of the leftists. Overall, it's well below where it was twenty or thirty years ago.