I think the real problem is that legislators are still hung up on this idea of regulating "scary" weapons without realizing that the functionality of a "scary" weapon is the exact same as a typical semi-automatic hunting rifle or a semi automatic self defense handgun. Or even a revolver for most realistic purposes.
Most of these politicians have no understanding, willfully or otherwise, of the distinctions between firearms. They cannot have a hope of effectively regulating firearm sales...
Scum, scum, scum, scum, scum... don't they make automated machines to clean these people out of the gene pool? JOHN MCCAIN PATRIOT ACT, NDAA s1867, ENEMY BELLIGERENT ACT, AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE, DREAM ACT, DISCLOSE ACT... this motherfucker is a traitor of the highest order.. closely tied to every one of the most anti-american pieces of legislation in our country's irrevocably tarnished history.
only reason the 2nd amendment is in the constitution is so that when the day comes, the people can kill those who threaten their god given rights. cut all this outdoor enjoyment bs
WHAT THE HELL, THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS FOR KILLING ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, NOT HUNTING. hunting plinking sports shooting etc are just nice side effects of owning weapons, not THE reasons. and screw that traitorous bastard John McCain, DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH THE ENEMIES OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
There is no such thing as an assault weapon. This is a made up term by liberal, gun grabbing democrats. There is such a thing as an assault rifle, however an AR15 does not fit the criteria. An assault rifle is fully automatic. Molon Labe!
Dont shoot guns.......... shoot assault rifles very closely to guns so they know the difference of what the hell is going on in this world. and then give them a Thanks for listening. And then a hand shake. jb
do you relize no politician is going to say yes or no to guns, 2/3 of the country likes guns, alot, the other 1/3 hates them and all things. So if he were to say "no ban ever" 1/3 of his votes would be gone, but by saying "maybe a little ban" he could get some of those 1/3 votes
Hes a shill people....HES PLACED THERE TO MAKE REPUBLICANS BELIEVE THEY CAN MAKE A CHANGE WITH A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE...VOTE RON PAUL A TRUE CONSERVATIVE AND AMERICAN THAT WILL PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION
200 years ago we fought our government with the same weapons they fought us with. Had this not been the case we would still be boot-licking colonists today. The 2nd amendment is not for the sportsman, it's for the patriot! Wake up America our country is being aggressively reshaped, by a small minority, into something most of us are opposed to.
@Diginanda YES ITS CALLED WORLD COMMUNISM OR AKA THE NEW WORLD ORDER...YOU KNOW THE ONE THAT PRESIDENT BUSH DEVOTED HIS PRESIDENCY TO THAT REPUBLICANS KEEP PRETENDING DIDNT HAPPEN...THEIR JUST AS BLIND AS THE DEMOCRATS THESE DAYS AND ITS DISGUSTING
at the end of the day guns aren't in america and legal so the whole of america can go hunting and shoot 4 sport they are there so they can kill each other, population reduction to many people in the world for the globalist
lol assault weapons have already been ban. theyve been ban since 1934. an assault weapon is fully automatic. semi automatic is NOT an assault weapon. anyone who says otherwise is an obama loving libtard and needs to get their communist ass out of america.
@joshkkv Yeah I love how nobody every brings that up on the news. Most military weapons people can't get access too. The media confuses people so they think their elected officials are banning weapons used by terrorists and gang members when it is the boy scouts and hunters.
@joshkkv machine guns are still legal in the usa they've never beened banned, the 1986 ban made new ones for civies illegal but they are still transferable and if you become a class 3 ffl dealer you can get the newerones
@joshkkv you can still get a machine gun as long as it was made before 1986 and registered with the ATF, you need an fbi background check and pat a $200 tax, they cost alot(about $4000 for a cheap smg) but are legal, unless you live in an anti gun state like california
@OlSaltyOne What he was talking about is how if an Assault weapons ban were to be put in place, it could set a nasty precedent and give the government a foothold in controlling and regulating every weapon out there, and possibly forcing registration and the like.
@apoco I know exactly what he saying and what he means, and I stand by my statement. He "married" into the state of AZ because he is a political opportunist. He has done very little for our state.
True, that if there were a rebellion the people would need the support of some of the armed forces and their command. I would rather have weapons and ammunition on hand rather than wait around for someone to protect me from any form of agressor whether that be a simple burgler or a fully outfitted soldier from an opposing army. I exercise my right to keep and bear arms for self defense in the hopes that I will never need to fire a single shot at another human being. I will die for that right.
Mr McCain, I own weapons for sport, I use my WASR10 for fun. But the biggest reason I own guns is to protect myself not only from criminals but from the government. I bet if the Jewish people in Germany during WWII had all been armed history would have been written differently.
Come take our guns, but you better make sure the American soldiers have your back and not ours.
@cyberhendrix it will be Canadian soldiers taken your guns Obama and his cronies pass this beauties in the middle of the night .i happen to stumble on this info from of all place a Russian news agency and they hid this under the disaster plan saying if there is a disaster like Katrina {and you know they disarmed all law abiding citizens there) that the Canadian army will be allowed on US soil to assist.because The American soldiers may not all comply.
@762infidel alot of people wont believe it but just 2-3 weeks ago a Canadian paratrooper died practicing on US soil.the US has already gone through towns down south unannounced taking weapons.i cant remember were i seen that. but its happening
Before they ban certain rifles, we should first ban politicians who do not have a clue why we would want them. We should limit congressmen to minimum wage. Do they really need that much money? We should limit them to retirement, only after they serve 20 years; they are after all, part timers. We should then limit their term to 12 years; 18 years if a 3/4ths majority wants them.
The reason "the people" are allowed to bear arms under the Bill of Rights, is to protect "the people" from abuse.
Violent crime has been on a downward trend since the 90's. We don't need more gun legislation. We need FUCKING JOBS. Fix the fucking economy and crime will probably go down as well. It's a well known fact that economic conditions impact crime rates. You want to be safe. Put Homie G' gang banger to work and he won't have time, or the need to rob your fucking ass.
Everything you know is wrong, rebellion is packaged, religion is a club....... The United States is a High tech totalitarian fascist police state dictatorship where most people believe it is a free country. (secret fascism- the ideology of cowards) The rest of the world is the same only people believe different things. The minute any rebellion (real or fake) takes off it's PJ's and goes to the street let it go and hope for the best. philipnute com
Thanks dip shit, but Im not interested in owning guns for sporting or hunting.
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
@toddytee11 Because that has happened so many times in the last 200 years...
Seriously, as if you are going to take your AK-47 and have a shoot out because government screws you over. When Jefferson wrote that, a rebellion might have had a chance, how are you going to fight tanks heat seeking missiles, fighter jets etc. Its nonsense. A rebellion could only win today if the army supported it, in which case you wouldn't need your own guns anyway.
The fact is, most crimes aren't, nor have they EVER largely been committed with the types of weapons that were banned in 1994. They're committed with handguns, and if you ban them, you take away a person's right and ability to carry a reasonable means of defending themselves, something which several states have already deemed acceptable, despite being unconstitutional. If you want to prevent crime arm all responsible citizens, overturn all drug convictions, and lock up violent criminals longer.
Ah, so practicality in everyday situations along with some burearocatic city dwelling deskbound vegetarian should now determine the scope of the 2nd Amendment that was written by the men who risked everything to give it to us.
I think we can all agree at this point that both Parties desire the end of Constitutionaly protected gun rights.
2nd Amendment? Pshaw...any mayor can order at whim confiscation absent even Martial Law with the pretense of an impending llama fart. Ex: Katrina
@Shockofsanta WRONG! "any mayor can order at whim confiscation absent even Martial Law" After Hurricane Katrina Senate Amendment 4615 Section 540 "PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS" was an amendment to H.R. 5441. H.R. 5441 was signed into law October 04, 2006 by George Bush.
@ClassicFIHD I stand corrected. However, a Mayor/Governor/etc. may order confiscation knowing itll take decades for a suit to reach the Supreme Court if at all.
If the Second Amendment wasnt respected during Katrina what leads you to believe H.R. 5441 would be respected either?
@Shockofsanta Because it was a gray area before the law where the Mayor would lose his job and go to prison after the law passed. Also would any federal agent that did as the Mayor said.
@ClassicFIHD Go to jail after how many decades of litigation again? H.R. 5441 looks like an appeasment to me, nothing more than "here, look we wont confiscate, now STFU." All it takes is some dumbfuck(or a few) like that Loghner and the frightened public will DEMAND confiscations, the Constitution and the Law be damned. "Save us from guns oh wise govt""
Sorry, brother, Im not convinced. Especially now with all the anti-gun retoric ramping up and knowing the gulibility of the general public.
@Shockofsanta He would lose his job LONG before litigation even began. Not to mention any National Guardsman that tried to enforce it could kiss his future away just as fast.
Would that be the same "frightened public" than when Obozo was elected, gun sale soured to record highs?
And since all those record high guns sales happened because of Obozo crime and murder has take an all time dive from 2008-2009. Murder rate went DOWN 7.2%, robberies DOWN 8.1% all in 6 to 12 months.
@Shockofsanta "Makes you wonder what their real motives are", that's the weird part. there in not one fact that backs them up and millions of facts that shoot them down.
Like congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy's husband was clearly killed during the Long Island Railroad massacre because of gun control and now she just introduce an anti 33 bullet magazine bill in congress.
Conservative, its in the name. They will always try to hold back progress, they fear it.
Free black men? Scary! Civil rights? Scary! Women vote? Scary! Gay rights? Scary(and blasphemous ofc).
The point is, most people are not conservative, so society will always change and evolve. And often that makes some parts of a constitution out of date. Thats why we ammend them from time to time.
The 2nd ammendment was written by men leading a revolution. Restricting it is long over due.
@TheSaltyAdmiral The Constitution was written by men who just dug their way out from under oppression by tyranny, and were interested in making sure their newly formed republic didn't fall into the hands of tyrants again soon. That's why they secured the rights of the people to own firearms. Our government, who's supposed to work FOR US, enforces law with a gunpoint. It's necessary for We the People to enforce the Constitution the same way. Guns prevent omnipotence of government, or CAN if used.
How could the G.O.P. nominate this guy for president? He is the epitome of the politician: dishonest and self-serving. Unfortunately, his opponent was even worse.
The second amendment is not about hunting or sport. It's about my/our right to survive in any scenario, It's about being able to make sure that we the people will always have a clearly heard voice.
i thought ALL amendments are unconditional. and i believe the amendments were writen in numarical order 1st to 10th, most important to less important. gun rights are 2nd and thier slowly taking them away from law abiding citezens.
I can see a day where gun control will be reasonable, but so long as any law banning guns is written by people who know nothing about them, we will be forever fighting this stupid political battle.
I just want to know when the Constitution of the United States became "negotiable" I mean to me it seems like most gun laws infringe the right to bear arms. Hence they violate the second ammendment. Hence they are illegal and the people who wrote them are criminals. Hence we should use that 2A right to apprehend these criminals and toss them in prison or if they don't go peacably... Either way, it is our right and our duty to kick these crooks out. Who's with me?
The second amendment was never about hunting or sport or even home defense. It is about the people retaining the ability to cast off a criminal government should our republic become fetid with the likes of McCain.
No, Mr. McCain, the challenge is not that it could "spill into weapons used for everyday hunting"... the challenge is getting grabbers like yourself to admit that the 2nd amdmnt protects effective weapons such as assault rifles every bit as much as it protects single shot bolt action hunting rifles.. The unfortunate truth is that sometimes what you are shooting at is already shooting back at you before you begin firing. In that situation, something more than "plink plink" is appropriate.
Yesterday 64 million registered gun owners didn't kill anyone. How can anyone not understand this..."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". IT IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT of the Constitution of the United States of America.
McCain is piece of human shit. Repitlian RINO faggot NWO cock suckin piece of shit. This trash bag wants to send americans off to war to die killing people that did nothing to us, but wants to disarm us at home.
What about a ban on sports cars? People don't really NEED cars that drive really fast do they? Especially cars that are designed to exceed every speed limit in the country.Honest, well meanining citizens don't need them. They just pollute our air and endanger the lives of our children. We don't have to ban all cars, just sports cars. You can still have station wagons and trucks. If it will save 1 life, it's worth it....... See how stupid this logic is when you apply it to something besides guns.
Democrats and Republicans are all the same. One party wants to strengthen the state to an unacceptable level, the other wants corporations to run everything. Neither of them truly care about individual freedom. I'm certainly no conservative, but that doesn't mean I'm a liberal either. Conservative by definition means you think things are just fine as they are, and I don't like the liberal solutions offered. We need to bring true democracy and individual freedom back to the United States.
@wcropp1 And it's not going to happen by voting for the next politician that promises you the world and a bag of potato chips. Time and again we've seen how letting other people run the country for us pisses everyone off, yet we keep voting for the same bastards over and over. I think it's time we take matters back into our own hands.
Ehhh, we got screwed this last elections, McCain wasn't the "Conservative" he was promised to be. As much as I dislike him though he would have been a better choice then our current president who views the constitution as an ancient and flawed document. I'm sorry but a president who doesn't support the constitution is unacceptable. I say it's better to vote for people like Ron Paul, and liberty oriented men and women to lead this country, we don't need CHANGE in our personal freedoms!
I do not like McCain in particular, but at least his views on Firearms aren't sooo Radical like Obama's,,, who seems to have forgotten the 2nd amendment exsists
I have heard from even gun owners "why do you need a "military style" rifle??" The illegal invasion illustrated exactly why we need them!! Because when the Government REFUSES to enforce our laws we will still be able to protect our families!! Thats why we NEED "military style" rifles!!!
Any one who supported this geezer is a fucking retard. Dems and Reps are the same thing. They all want to use the power of the state to controll everyones lives one way or the other.
get this fool out of office, he has done enough damage to our limited liberties thats remaining..he is a disgrace, the progressives on both sides need to be kicked the hell out, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, just get the hell out of office john, quit go home already, everything this fool has done since going to d.c. is about taking our liberty away..and yes i had to vote for his sorryass, cause i knew how bad barry was gonna be, and believe me we havent seen the worst yet
Wow he must have said that crap just to please the left. I would hope that he knows that 2nd amendment isnt about hunting. But he is right I get a lot of enjoyment out of guns :)
police and politicians need to fucking focus on getting the guns out of the drug dealing fucking thugs hands ,not honest americans. here in baltimore the blacks are on a warpath killing eachother daily.dont punish me for their actions.
im proud of you mr . thats the smartest thing to come out of your mouth....if you spoke so honestly and calm back then , you would be pres..now., thanks for you service then and now!
Well you sound like you feel the same way, so I retract my label of dumb and apologize. I just wish they would eliminate all the controversy, both sides Rep. and Dem. make it sound like they are trying to do "whats best" for America. Look what they have done, one of the states that has the most gun laws restricting 'assualt weapons' is the state with the highest crime rate. I just don't trust either side they will steal your rights at every chance they get, and thats God's honest truth.
I don't think you are dumb. I don't think all gov't is dumb. Sarah Palin... I don't think she is dumb. I KNOW she is dumb. But thats only one person. Your view on politics... all I can say is welcome to the good ol' USA. As far as both sides stealing your rights... again welcome to good ol' USA. The country where we have freedom of speech... just not out loud.
Well, you are right and I didnt mean ALL goverment I mis-spoke. I mean all American govermet is retarded, as long as we keep our present course I forsee another civil war very soon.
You know what you can do is do personal interviews on good law abiding hard working Canadians and Ame'ricans before giving them permission on"scary" weapons. Same scenario. Just don't sell them to former criminals. Our president's and primeministers are sure gonna be kicking eachothers asses when are country get's invaded by ultra nationalists and we're standing around jacking off until we die. NAPLF!!!! FUCK THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT WING OF THE EAGLE. It's all about the Beaver!!!!
I'm simply saying that PALIN is in NO WAY ready to be in ANY position of major power. Maccain was a LIBERAL republican and PALIN was a political move to get women to swing with republicans. I consider myself a libertarian and thought ALL candidates in 08 we're TERRIBLE for this country, Obama Maccain, ALL OF THEM! I think Obama is a TERRIBLE PRESIDENT, but Macattack woulda been just as bad.
Palin had more experience in politics than Obama did. But you are right Palin was to get female votes but lets take a look at the other side of the coin. Obama was picked for the minority vote. When you look at the democratic candidates Clinton was so much more qualified in every area its fucking ridiculous. Obama is a good speaker so he could sweet talk voters and he was the first black presidential nominee so people who voted for him could say, "I helped elect the first black president".
@mahnameiswin i agree. but the thing i just dont understand is what horror did bush create? sure he was a horrible speaker, so what? he graduated yale i think it was? dont hold me to that tho i know it was a good school. thats way better than most of us. and he was president during the biggest disaster since pearl harbor. do you really think clinton would have done better? he bombed a fucking aspirin factory. but God forbid a liberal screwed something up. Bush did a good job.
Its not going to do a 180 you idiot. We have 10% job unemployment, and his wind turbines aren't going to fix that. Taxing people who GIVE US JOBS is FAIL. Nothing will be fixed, Obama will be a 1 term president.
@mahnameiswin obama does not behave like an American, hes not a patriot, hates freedom, hes a freakin muslim sympathizing traitor -- him and his radical cronies need their asses kicked out and eliminated, period. this guy is the worst thing that ever happened to the US, maybe if we get out of this mess people will be more careful who they vote for next time - hell theyre all crooks anyway---- but at least get one thats half a patriot-lol
@mahnameiswin i agree that obama will be a 1 term president but keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy is not going to help pay the trillions that bush put on us. dont listen to right wing propaganda or left wing propaganda, the companies who are laying people off are making billions in profits. IBM made enough money last year to pay over 6 million americans 47,000 dollars a year that the rich pricks at the top still would have had enough money to buy their 10th DREAM HOME.
That rate is a true but those are who receive benefits after 3 monthes you aren't existing on that list so the the number of unemployed, who have gotten and/or are recieving or done recieving is 36.234%
That rate is a true but those are who receive benefits after 3 monthes you aren't existing on that list so the the number of unemployed, who have gotten and/or are receiving or done receiving is 36.234%
yeah they were all bad and palin looked like she would have been terrible but damn Obama has been doing the owrst possible job with foreign relations he just pissed off the Norwegians and already made us look stupid infront of several other counties its pathetic anyone (even Palin) could do better
u mean republican not conservative but he is to libertarian to get elected but not to be in office we need someone to shrink down this crazy bureaucratic mess they call the U.S. gov't
OMG! Stupid.Really a barrel shroud? Clearly this person meant well but a clear example of an un-informed politician. The main argument is not about taking away our right to bear arms. Its about safety or the perceived notion that if we limited the access to assault weapons there would be less gun crime. I would rather have an extensive back ground check and even wait 30 days, pay for a comprehensive background check etc. But let me buy the firearm of my choic
Wow! Even a tight assed conservative like McCain said he would consider an assault weapon's ban. What a freaking prick. It's annoying when the people running the country don't even know the facts. Like that "assault weapons" barely cause any deaths a year, and when the last ban was passed crime had NO CHANGE. They also don't realize that no gun control measure has reduced crime rates or deaths. Although yeah, let's ban them anyways, just incase. It's only our right as an American.
McCain totally misses the point. Any time you hear a politician talking about "sporting use" in a 2nd amendment discussion, they either don't understand the 2nd amendment or they're trying to keep you from understanding it. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
McCain made "lock up your self defense" anti-gun public service announcements that were a lot like the DC gun ban nonsense where guns had to be unloaded and locked up separately from the ammo, making them useless for defense.
If the 2A is an assurance that tyrrany would never come to the American people, then why doesn't it just say so?
... and you need to read up on this whole Hitler/Stalin/gun control thing. It's a complete myth. Neither "disarmed their people" - they had no guns to start with !
Hmm. Not quite. The 2A was written when the US needed to be able to muster a readily armed and trained militia with which to repel an invading power - the big threat of the day being the British army.
But now you have a professional standing army armed with the latest fire-power - fire-power you do NOT want to put in the hands of average citizen. Plus there's the fact that the US is geographically impossible to invade.
So Einstein, your saying all the other amendments like the first (Freedom of speech) only relates to the 18th century. No, they are all rights that our founding fathers knew we would need if the country was to stay free. Why don't you read some of the fonding fathers memoirs and you'll see how wrong you are.
No. You are distorting my words. I am saying that the 2A is not about firearms - just arms. The founders spoke about firearms in their writings - but this is only reasonable - but they couldn't have written about semi-auto weapons, hard drugs, cities is of millions of people, cars, aeroplanes, could they ?
The founders were not endowed with mystic wisdom. They were not prophets. They were just clever, and human. You expect to much from them.
Your right they weren't mystics but they just threw of the shackles of oppression and left the rights of people wide open to do the same. They expected more of us. I don't expect too much of the founding fathers but they expected so much from us. They country is almost in the same shape that England was. Opressive goverment that wants to question and control everything we do. The founding fathers wanted us (future generations) to stay the course by anymeans necessary.
Oh, the muskets and rifles that the citizens used in the 18th century were state of the art weapons. Snipers were introduced using specialized hunting rifles. Why shouldn't I own the same small arms the military uses? I am responsible. The materials and equipment I'm around are far more dangerous than a shoulder fired missile.
For the simple reason that if you are permitted to own such weaponry, then it will be inevitable that the criminals and crazies will also have such weaponry.
There on laws so that they won't. they are not enforced. Liberal laywers, judges and politicians have allowed this. Most people drive sanely and follow the laws regarding automobiles. Yet some people do not. You revoke the privilege of the minority that doesn't, not the majority that obeys they law.
"There on laws so that they won't." Alas, such laws will ALWAYS be inadequate, no matter what they are. This is because when a citizen decides to break a law, and move from law-abiding to criminal, they are often already armed with a handgun they legitimately bought for self-defence. Same for the mentally ill - symptoms can develop after the purchase of the gun.
Okay. Cars can be driven responsibly or irresponsibly and the different is reflected in the number of accidents. But your argument ONLY addresses accidents. If someone WANTS to kill another, they'll use a gun, not a car. This is the problem.
Actually, not long ago, we saw that someone who wants to kill someone who doesn't have a gun, knife, or something will use a car if they get the chance.
Now, even if you ban something entirely, from any civilian possession at all, what's to keep criminals from getting it? They can still get it from boarder jumpers, police and military, or other means, which they use to get weapons now, and lawful civilians will have no means to protect themselves from such weapons.
Mexico has serious problem with guns being smuggled in from the US, often as payment for drugs supplied by the cartels. Many more handguns are, after all, manufactured in the US.
Like those US states with strong gun control - the guns are imported over state lines from US states with lax gun control.
Actually, as it turns out, a small fraction of guns recovered in Mexico came from the U.S. illegally. The 90% being paraded around is an absolute lie. Clinton did send the Mexican government a large number of firearms, including several hundred Barret M82 .50 caliber rifles, which now are being paraded around as a reason to ban civilian ownership whenever one is discovered in the hands of the cartel. Really, very few Mexican firearms went from civilian ownership right to Mexico.
There are many things that are banned entirely - and yes - you can still buy them. But you are forgetting about the COST. You'll never stop criminals getting hold of guns entirely, but you can make them prohibitively expensive. How ? Maximise the risk for the gun supplier - make the criminals pay through the nose for the risk taken by the supplier. And you want a good supplier who won't betray you when he gets caught - you'll just have to pay more.
Those things that are banned are, for the most part, still widely available, and still not prohibitively expensive. Look at Mexico, guns are illegal, and drugs were before, and the government had no control, regulation, or record over the huge black market importing and exporting drugs and illegal firearms.
True, you'll never stop criminals from getting guns, but you will stop law-abiding citizens from keeping themselves safe from those criminals, and that's all you're going to do, really.
Drugs are illegal but cheap in Mexico because they can be mass produced from the local flora. Guns are illegal but cheap in Mexico because they can be imported in bulk from the US.
To drive up the price you need two things, scarcity and illegality. One without the other doesn't work.
You distinguish between law-abiding and criminals as though they are two different social groups. They are not.
I can't make 1000 handguns a day, but I can make one in a day or two from an investment casting. I don't need a factory for that. 1000 people could easily keep production going after a ban working from their homes.
Mexico legalized narcotics in order to undermine the drug cartels. If the U.S. really wanted to end the Mexican drug violence problem, they could do the same.
You might be in the same group in your country as criminals, but not here. I'm not in the same group as them.
Employing a 1000 people to make 1000 guns per day will make each gun cost the same as 1 person making 1 gun per day. Plus there is the added risk of getting caught, Nope .The black market price for a gun would still go up.
Criminals and law-abiding are not separate! Many criminals regard themselves as decent law-abiding people. And to say that anybody who has ever committed crime is instantly going to break every law there is "because that's what criminals do" is plain silly.
I might think I'm Jesus, but that doesn't make it true. Criminals generally do break laws, it's what makes them criminals. Most violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders.
As for the black market, the price might go up, it might go down because they don't have to pay for insurance and advertising, but it's not going to take guns out of the market. Even in the U.K., where guns are banned, people are making guns out of all kinds of things. Extremely cheap shotguns can be made of pipe.
Shotguns can be made easily - but you're missing my point. Guns are not being made in factory quantities in the UK - there is no market for criminals to make it worthwhile to start such a factory. The best they can do is convert a couple of replicas in their garages at the weekend.
In the US, factories are flooding the US market with legal weaponry. Market forces - competition - between manufacturers keeps the prices down.
This has been flagged as spam show
I think the real problem is that legislators are still hung up on this idea of regulating "scary" weapons without realizing that the functionality of a "scary" weapon is the exact same as a typical semi-automatic hunting rifle or a semi automatic self defense handgun. Or even a revolver for most realistic purposes.
Most of these politicians have no understanding, willfully or otherwise, of the distinctions between firearms. They cannot have a hope of effectively regulating firearm sales...
Redfingers 2 weeks ago
Scum, scum, scum, scum, scum... don't they make automated machines to clean these people out of the gene pool? JOHN MCCAIN PATRIOT ACT, NDAA s1867, ENEMY BELLIGERENT ACT, AUTHORIZATION FOR THE USE OF MILITARY FORCE, DREAM ACT, DISCLOSE ACT... this motherfucker is a traitor of the highest order.. closely tied to every one of the most anti-american pieces of legislation in our country's irrevocably tarnished history.
MisterAvis 4 weeks ago
only reason the 2nd amendment is in the constitution is so that when the day comes, the people can kill those who threaten their god given rights. cut all this outdoor enjoyment bs
onebigbagostupid 1 month ago
John McCain, you have no spine, you are a bad representative of both republicans and my fellow Arizonans
fatguyaaron 1 month ago
WHAT THE HELL, THE SECOND AMENDMENT IS FOR KILLING ENEMIES FOREIGN AND DOMESTIC, NOT HUNTING. hunting plinking sports shooting etc are just nice side effects of owning weapons, not THE reasons. and screw that traitorous bastard John McCain, DO NOT NEGOTIATE WITH THE ENEMIES OF THE SECOND AMENDMENT
BigSean1992 1 month ago
Get back in the tiger cage John, no one wants to hear your bullshit.
ARBuilder1776 3 months ago
fuck mccain, fuck obama, and fuck any bureaucrat politician trying to take my guns or trying to invade my body.
daffy840 4 months ago 8
@daffy840 You should look into Ron Paul, he believes in the Constitution and is an honorable man
tommy35ss 2 months ago
There is no such thing as an assault weapon. This is a made up term by liberal, gun grabbing democrats. There is such a thing as an assault rifle, however an AR15 does not fit the criteria. An assault rifle is fully automatic. Molon Labe!
INMY01TA 4 months ago
Dont shoot guns.......... shoot assault rifles very closely to guns so they know the difference of what the hell is going on in this world. and then give them a Thanks for listening. And then a hand shake. jb
jarodboen1 4 months ago
0:38 "The danger of the "Assault Weapons" ban spilling into weapons that people use for everyday hunting, I think, Is the challenge."
Rephrase
The danger of the "Assault Weapons" ban spilling into weapons that people HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN, I think, Is the challenge.
phgHunter 4 months ago
Hey Old guy! How are we supposed to protect ourselve's from a tyrannical Gov?
ChromeDove 4 months ago
do you relize no politician is going to say yes or no to guns, 2/3 of the country likes guns, alot, the other 1/3 hates them and all things. So if he were to say "no ban ever" 1/3 of his votes would be gone, but by saying "maybe a little ban" he could get some of those 1/3 votes
dumfart21 5 months ago
Juan "Amigo To Illegals" McCain.
RayAir1 6 months ago
Hes a shill people....HES PLACED THERE TO MAKE REPUBLICANS BELIEVE THEY CAN MAKE A CHANGE WITH A REPUBLICAN CANDIDATE...VOTE RON PAUL A TRUE CONSERVATIVE AND AMERICAN THAT WILL PROTECT THE CONSTITUTION
AntBanks2626 6 months ago 3
200 years ago we fought our government with the same weapons they fought us with. Had this not been the case we would still be boot-licking colonists today. The 2nd amendment is not for the sportsman, it's for the patriot! Wake up America our country is being aggressively reshaped, by a small minority, into something most of us are opposed to.
Diginanda 7 months ago 16
@Diginanda YES ITS CALLED WORLD COMMUNISM OR AKA THE NEW WORLD ORDER...YOU KNOW THE ONE THAT PRESIDENT BUSH DEVOTED HIS PRESIDENCY TO THAT REPUBLICANS KEEP PRETENDING DIDNT HAPPEN...THEIR JUST AS BLIND AS THE DEMOCRATS THESE DAYS AND ITS DISGUSTING
AntBanks2626 6 months ago
@Diginanda And to our amazement, British people like Pierce Morgan are in the media to this day telling us we should not be allowed to own guns.
200 years ago the Red Coats raided the colonies to confiscate military arms.
Fuck you Pierce Morgan.
Lexter441 1 month ago 4
@Diginanda agreed!
fatguyaaron 1 month ago
McCain is an old crusty traitor. Hey McCain, go get some mental health counseling.
RayAir1 7 months ago
at the end of the day guns aren't in america and legal so the whole of america can go hunting and shoot 4 sport they are there so they can kill each other, population reduction to many people in the world for the globalist
hell6666100 7 months ago
Now I remember why I voted for McCain....he opposed the useless assualt weapons ban.
Other than that, I've realized that McCain is kind of a dumbass....
94SexyStang 7 months ago 3
and these guns are used to hold the government in check
michaelf1900 8 months ago
lol assault weapons have already been ban. theyve been ban since 1934. an assault weapon is fully automatic. semi automatic is NOT an assault weapon. anyone who says otherwise is an obama loving libtard and needs to get their communist ass out of america.
joshkkv 8 months ago
@joshkkv Yeah I love how nobody every brings that up on the news. Most military weapons people can't get access too. The media confuses people so they think their elected officials are banning weapons used by terrorists and gang members when it is the boy scouts and hunters.
NJburbsSeeker 8 months ago
@joshkkv machine guns are still legal in the usa they've never beened banned, the 1986 ban made new ones for civies illegal but they are still transferable and if you become a class 3 ffl dealer you can get the newerones
TheAlexagius 8 months ago
@TheAlexagius i mean just normal everyday people. not people with a class 3.
joshkkv 8 months ago
@joshkkv you can still get a machine gun as long as it was made before 1986 and registered with the ATF, you need an fbi background check and pat a $200 tax, they cost alot(about $4000 for a cheap smg) but are legal, unless you live in an anti gun state like california
TheAlexagius 8 months ago
We should be allowed to own RPGs and LAWs and Stingers and Javelins just because they exist.
Apoc897 9 months ago
What a feeble minded opportunist!
McCain, you are a US Senator.You of all people should know that it is NOT about hunting rights. I'll be so glad when we get rid of his tired old ass!
OlSaltyOne 9 months ago
@OlSaltyOne What he was talking about is how if an Assault weapons ban were to be put in place, it could set a nasty precedent and give the government a foothold in controlling and regulating every weapon out there, and possibly forcing registration and the like.
apoco 8 months ago
@apoco I know exactly what he saying and what he means, and I stand by my statement. He "married" into the state of AZ because he is a political opportunist. He has done very little for our state.
OlSaltyOne 8 months ago
He would of been a good president.
snomankak 9 months ago
True, that if there were a rebellion the people would need the support of some of the armed forces and their command. I would rather have weapons and ammunition on hand rather than wait around for someone to protect me from any form of agressor whether that be a simple burgler or a fully outfitted soldier from an opposing army. I exercise my right to keep and bear arms for self defense in the hopes that I will never need to fire a single shot at another human being. I will die for that right.
fab5flowers 10 months ago
If you outlaw guns only outlaws will own guns.
Mr McCain, I own weapons for sport, I use my WASR10 for fun. But the biggest reason I own guns is to protect myself not only from criminals but from the government. I bet if the Jewish people in Germany during WWII had all been armed history would have been written differently.
Come take our guns, but you better make sure the American soldiers have your back and not ours.
cyberhendrix 10 months ago
@cyberhendrix it will be Canadian soldiers taken your guns Obama and his cronies pass this beauties in the middle of the night .i happen to stumble on this info from of all place a Russian news agency and they hid this under the disaster plan saying if there is a disaster like Katrina {and you know they disarmed all law abiding citizens there) that the Canadian army will be allowed on US soil to assist.because The American soldiers may not all comply.
O7ROADKING 10 months ago
@O7ROADKING Excuse me? Please cite....hopefully this is wrong.
762infidel 8 months ago
@762infidel alot of people wont believe it but just 2-3 weeks ago a Canadian paratrooper died practicing on US soil.the US has already gone through towns down south unannounced taking weapons.i cant remember were i seen that. but its happening
O7ROADKING 8 months ago
Gun laws only affect law abiding citizens. Do you think drug runners or gang bangers care about gun laws?
If you outlaw guns only outlaws will own guns.
cyberhendrix 10 months ago 2
we need a good old country boy in the whitehouse. get the rich crooked politicians out
twfish2013 11 months ago
Before they ban certain rifles, we should first ban politicians who do not have a clue why we would want them. We should limit congressmen to minimum wage. Do they really need that much money? We should limit them to retirement, only after they serve 20 years; they are after all, part timers. We should then limit their term to 12 years; 18 years if a 3/4ths majority wants them.
The reason "the people" are allowed to bear arms under the Bill of Rights, is to protect "the people" from abuse.
ThDreadPirateRoberts 11 months ago
At least McCain knows what he is talking about and keeps the responsible law abiding citizens in mind.
UggmunsStudios 11 months ago
well glad i got more assault rifles than most small gun stores.. try and take them i dare anyone
ProfessorTapOut 11 months ago
Violent crime has been on a downward trend since the 90's. We don't need more gun legislation. We need FUCKING JOBS. Fix the fucking economy and crime will probably go down as well. It's a well known fact that economic conditions impact crime rates. You want to be safe. Put Homie G' gang banger to work and he won't have time, or the need to rob your fucking ass.
GUNFIGHTERNINE 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Everything you know is wrong, rebellion is packaged, religion is a club....... The United States is a High tech totalitarian fascist police state dictatorship where most people believe it is a free country. (secret fascism- the ideology of cowards) The rest of the world is the same only people believe different things. The minute any rebellion (real or fake) takes off it's PJ's and goes to the street let it go and hope for the best. philipnute com
zsezse215 1 year ago
Thanks dip shit, but Im not interested in owning guns for sporting or hunting.
"The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government." - Thomas Jefferson
toddytee11 1 year ago
@toddytee11 Because that has happened so many times in the last 200 years...
Seriously, as if you are going to take your AK-47 and have a shoot out because government screws you over. When Jefferson wrote that, a rebellion might have had a chance, how are you going to fight tanks heat seeking missiles, fighter jets etc. Its nonsense. A rebellion could only win today if the army supported it, in which case you wouldn't need your own guns anyway.
DukeofWellington91 11 months ago
Glad I voted for McCain, I also like how he said quote, unquote assault weapons.
CT1911GUY 1 year ago
I would have voted for McCain if he didn't fuck up and choose Palin as a running mate.
DeadFishFactory 1 year ago
Lets just ban free thinking... I'm working in my lab on mind reading experiment. MIND POLICE is what I've named it.
nanookrubbingit 1 year ago
I'm ashamed to have voted for this man. I should have supported Ron Paul from the beginning. McCain is useless.
brad238899 1 year ago
Where does the 2nd amendment say ANYTHING about hunting?!
1994WN 1 year ago
The fact is, most crimes aren't, nor have they EVER largely been committed with the types of weapons that were banned in 1994. They're committed with handguns, and if you ban them, you take away a person's right and ability to carry a reasonable means of defending themselves, something which several states have already deemed acceptable, despite being unconstitutional. If you want to prevent crime arm all responsible citizens, overturn all drug convictions, and lock up violent criminals longer.
gblpst81 1 year ago
exactly what part of the 2nd amendment states that it has to do with hunting. why the hell do people keep voting for this traitor
wethepeople2013 1 year ago
Ah, so practicality in everyday situations along with some burearocatic city dwelling deskbound vegetarian should now determine the scope of the 2nd Amendment that was written by the men who risked everything to give it to us.
I think we can all agree at this point that both Parties desire the end of Constitutionaly protected gun rights.
2nd Amendment? Pshaw...any mayor can order at whim confiscation absent even Martial Law with the pretense of an impending llama fart. Ex: Katrina
Shockofsanta 1 year ago
@Shockofsanta WRONG! "any mayor can order at whim confiscation absent even Martial Law" After Hurricane Katrina Senate Amendment 4615 Section 540 "PROHIBITION ON CONFISCATION OF FIREARMS" was an amendment to H.R. 5441. H.R. 5441 was signed into law October 04, 2006 by George Bush.
ClassicFIHD 1 year ago
@ClassicFIHD I stand corrected. However, a Mayor/Governor/etc. may order confiscation knowing itll take decades for a suit to reach the Supreme Court if at all.
If the Second Amendment wasnt respected during Katrina what leads you to believe H.R. 5441 would be respected either?
Shockofsanta 1 year ago
@Shockofsanta Because it was a gray area before the law where the Mayor would lose his job and go to prison after the law passed. Also would any federal agent that did as the Mayor said.
ClassicFIHD 1 year ago
@ClassicFIHD Go to jail after how many decades of litigation again? H.R. 5441 looks like an appeasment to me, nothing more than "here, look we wont confiscate, now STFU." All it takes is some dumbfuck(or a few) like that Loghner and the frightened public will DEMAND confiscations, the Constitution and the Law be damned. "Save us from guns oh wise govt""
Sorry, brother, Im not convinced. Especially now with all the anti-gun retoric ramping up and knowing the gulibility of the general public.
Shockofsanta 1 year ago
@Shockofsanta He would lose his job LONG before litigation even began. Not to mention any National Guardsman that tried to enforce it could kiss his future away just as fast.
Would that be the same "frightened public" than when Obozo was elected, gun sale soured to record highs?
And since all those record high guns sales happened because of Obozo crime and murder has take an all time dive from 2008-2009. Murder rate went DOWN 7.2%, robberies DOWN 8.1% all in 6 to 12 months.
ClassicFIHD 1 year ago
@ClassicFIHD Too bad the gun control fucktards dont care about those statistics. Makes you wonder what their real motives are...
Shockofsanta 1 year ago
@Shockofsanta "Makes you wonder what their real motives are", that's the weird part. there in not one fact that backs them up and millions of facts that shoot them down.
Like congresswoman Carolyn McCarthy's husband was clearly killed during the Long Island Railroad massacre because of gun control and now she just introduce an anti 33 bullet magazine bill in congress.
ClassicFIHD 1 year ago
FUCK YOU JUAN MCSAME, GO SUCK OFF THAT OTHER FLIP FLOPPING SELF SERVING SACK OF SHIT RINO FROM SOUTH CAROLINA FLIMSY GRAMNESTY!!!
Kahn535 1 year ago
Conservative, its in the name. They will always try to hold back progress, they fear it.
Free black men? Scary! Civil rights? Scary! Women vote? Scary! Gay rights? Scary(and blasphemous ofc).
The point is, most people are not conservative, so society will always change and evolve. And often that makes some parts of a constitution out of date. Thats why we ammend them from time to time.
The 2nd ammendment was written by men leading a revolution. Restricting it is long over due.
TheSaltyAdmiral 1 year ago
@TheSaltyAdmiral The Constitution was written by men who just dug their way out from under oppression by tyranny, and were interested in making sure their newly formed republic didn't fall into the hands of tyrants again soon. That's why they secured the rights of the people to own firearms. Our government, who's supposed to work FOR US, enforces law with a gunpoint. It's necessary for We the People to enforce the Constitution the same way. Guns prevent omnipotence of government, or CAN if used.
gblpst81 1 year ago
How could the G.O.P. nominate this guy for president? He is the epitome of the politician: dishonest and self-serving. Unfortunately, his opponent was even worse.
OnceWeWereHere 1 year ago
I flush items down the toilet that are more intelligent than the cretins that voted for the AWB and the Brady Law.
nov284 1 year ago
Comment removed
nov284 1 year ago
The second amendment is not about hunting or sport. It's about my/our right to survive in any scenario, It's about being able to make sure that we the people will always have a clearly heard voice.
SARKEK 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
They only want to ban guns because they're afraid people might rebel.
Humberto4790 1 year ago
fucking bans are dumb
if a criminal wants an automatic or assault weapon he will fucking get one
stop putting general public at a disadvantage
w55ks 1 year ago
ITS NOT ABOUT HUNTING YOU FUCKING FAKE CONSERVATIVE!!!! Jesus fuck, i hate all these "conservatives" John McCain you make me sick
LcplMartin1986 1 year ago
i thought ALL amendments are unconditional. and i believe the amendments were writen in numarical order 1st to 10th, most important to less important. gun rights are 2nd and thier slowly taking them away from law abiding citezens.
YAYAJACE 1 year ago
I think John McCain makes a good point. I would see no reason to support an assault weapons ban either.
hogger129 1 year ago
John McCain is in it for John McCain. Time to retire, RINO.
OldManHistory 1 year ago
HAHAHA!!! XD I finally know why the government wants to band guns,its because all the US citizens hate the way the government is being ran!
treverlid87 1 year ago
I can see a day where gun control will be reasonable, but so long as any law banning guns is written by people who know nothing about them, we will be forever fighting this stupid political battle.
SgtToadette 1 year ago
I just want to know when the Constitution of the United States became "negotiable" I mean to me it seems like most gun laws infringe the right to bear arms. Hence they violate the second ammendment. Hence they are illegal and the people who wrote them are criminals. Hence we should use that 2A right to apprehend these criminals and toss them in prison or if they don't go peacably... Either way, it is our right and our duty to kick these crooks out. Who's with me?
mattxr2i 1 year ago 2
The second amendment was never about hunting or sport or even home defense. It is about the people retaining the ability to cast off a criminal government should our republic become fetid with the likes of McCain.
TheAmericanMirror 1 year ago
so...uhhhh....... part two he'll answer the question?
glenbjack 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cars kill 64 TIMES MORE THEN GUNS!!!!
>>>> Google "WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports"
PLEASE PASS THIS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We need as many tools as we can get to fight the media's ignorant, misleading and misguided propaganda about firearms, brainwashing society basically.
glenbjack 1 year ago
No, Mr. McCain, the challenge is not that it could "spill into weapons used for everyday hunting"... the challenge is getting grabbers like yourself to admit that the 2nd amdmnt protects effective weapons such as assault rifles every bit as much as it protects single shot bolt action hunting rifles.. The unfortunate truth is that sometimes what you are shooting at is already shooting back at you before you begin firing. In that situation, something more than "plink plink" is appropriate.
pfarabee 1 year ago
Typical politician speaking. He said absolutely nothing in so many words.
seberusnet 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yesterday 64 million registered gun owners didn't kill anyone. How can anyone not understand this..."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". IT IS THE SECOND AMENDMENT of the Constitution of the United States of America.
SPAD58 1 year ago
McCain is piece of human shit. Repitlian RINO faggot NWO cock suckin piece of shit. This trash bag wants to send americans off to war to die killing people that did nothing to us, but wants to disarm us at home.
thotkrime 1 year ago 2
What about a ban on sports cars? People don't really NEED cars that drive really fast do they? Especially cars that are designed to exceed every speed limit in the country.Honest, well meanining citizens don't need them. They just pollute our air and endanger the lives of our children. We don't have to ban all cars, just sports cars. You can still have station wagons and trucks. If it will save 1 life, it's worth it....... See how stupid this logic is when you apply it to something besides guns.
ffryan 1 year ago 111
@ffryan Sadly, there are plenty of people that would agree with the sports car logic as well.
licmy3balls 1 year ago
@ffryan very well said.
AndyJackson1776 7 months ago
@ffryan I have made this comment a million times in this argument with people. GOOD POINT !
bnsaints 6 months ago
Democrats and Republicans are all the same. One party wants to strengthen the state to an unacceptable level, the other wants corporations to run everything. Neither of them truly care about individual freedom. I'm certainly no conservative, but that doesn't mean I'm a liberal either. Conservative by definition means you think things are just fine as they are, and I don't like the liberal solutions offered. We need to bring true democracy and individual freedom back to the United States.
wcropp1 1 year ago
@wcropp1 And it's not going to happen by voting for the next politician that promises you the world and a bag of potato chips. Time and again we've seen how letting other people run the country for us pisses everyone off, yet we keep voting for the same bastards over and over. I think it's time we take matters back into our own hands.
wcropp1 1 year ago
Ehhh, we got screwed this last elections, McCain wasn't the "Conservative" he was promised to be. As much as I dislike him though he would have been a better choice then our current president who views the constitution as an ancient and flawed document. I'm sorry but a president who doesn't support the constitution is unacceptable. I say it's better to vote for people like Ron Paul, and liberty oriented men and women to lead this country, we don't need CHANGE in our personal freedoms!
oldannyboy37 1 year ago
I do not like McCain in particular, but at least his views on Firearms aren't sooo Radical like Obama's,,, who seems to have forgotten the 2nd amendment exsists
respectforveterans 1 year ago
Mr. McCain, "The second amendment isn't about duck hunting." Sincerely, someone who thinks you should really revise your position, like, a lot.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
I have heard from even gun owners "why do you need a "military style" rifle??" The illegal invasion illustrated exactly why we need them!! Because when the Government REFUSES to enforce our laws we will still be able to protect our families!! Thats why we NEED "military style" rifles!!!
MrSimonGirty 1 year ago
I can fire my damn pellet rifle from my hip and it does not have a pistol grip. These dumbass people need to leave the USA.
skullcrusher7979 1 year ago
How are we going to protect our freedoms from our government if we have cap guns when they have cannons?
JFKCoupdetat 1 year ago
Anti gun POS, don't trust this two faced neocon liberal.
RyanR3volution 1 year ago
Obama--> #1 Anti-gun troll
WelcomeToBrink 1 year ago
Any one who supported this geezer is a fucking retard. Dems and Reps are the same thing. They all want to use the power of the state to controll everyones lives one way or the other.
patrickjohn84 1 year ago
Terrorist Cells - TRAINING CAMPS in AMERICA - actual video: this is why we need guns here, copy and paste in search
angel2rx 1 year ago
I actually had to put on my hip waders to understand mccains jibberish.
How about you lock up the criminals, deport the illegals and provide for open carry for everyone.
not just allow open carry but "provide" for it. Nurture it with public awareness campaigns & tax incentives...
rllang01 1 year ago 2
i hope this guy gets kicked out of office!
natemate49080 1 year ago
He is an anti gun toad, get this pos out of the AZ position.
FromyColdeadHands 1 year ago 30
get this fool out of office, he has done enough damage to our limited liberties thats remaining..he is a disgrace, the progressives on both sides need to be kicked the hell out, the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting, just get the hell out of office john, quit go home already, everything this fool has done since going to d.c. is about taking our liberty away..and yes i had to vote for his sorryass, cause i knew how bad barry was gonna be, and believe me we havent seen the worst yet
hoosieragainstobama 1 year ago
@hoosieragainstobama
Obama really hasn't been much worse then mccain would have been,
I just wish Obama would end these silly wars like he said we was.
TheMango121 1 year ago
RINO
huntinforit 1 year ago
THIS ISNT AN ISSUE OF FUCKING HUNTING. ITS AN ISSUE OF SELF DEFENSE AGAINST BAD GUYS AND BAD GOV'T. fuck you mccain, you turn coat republican
mbenson2790 2 years ago
Wow he must have said that crap just to please the left. I would hope that he knows that 2nd amendment isnt about hunting. But he is right I get a lot of enjoyment out of guns :)
PGTRegard 2 years ago 3
police and politicians need to fucking focus on getting the guns out of the drug dealing fucking thugs hands ,not honest americans. here in baltimore the blacks are on a warpath killing eachother daily.dont punish me for their actions.
piehole789 2 years ago 2
wishy washy poloticians
lobo9er 2 years ago
im proud of you mr . thats the smartest thing to come out of your mouth....if you spoke so honestly and calm back then , you would be pres..now., thanks for you service then and now!
767dag 2 years ago
OMG! Mavrick said something smart!!
getemhi 2 years ago
this was why i voted for him
1945Ace1 2 years ago
I voted for Obama. Only because I hate Palin.
getemhi 2 years ago
@getemhi what did she do? hurt your feelings? you watch to much SNL
mbenson2790 2 years ago
@mbenson Its not her... its her mother. Gave birth to a stupid child.
getemhi 2 years ago
so how is she stupid?
mbenson2790 2 years ago
Well, for starters, she ran for Vise President.
getemhi 2 years ago
vice president dumbass!
nowthisisstupid 1 year ago
Thank you for the spelling correction. I bet you sent Sarah Palin about a million emails correcting her dumb shit.
getemhi 1 year ago
No can't say that I did, I don't really care about her junk because all goverment is dumb bro...
nowthisisstupid 1 year ago
Sounds like everyone is dumb but you.
getemhi 1 year ago
Well you sound like you feel the same way, so I retract my label of dumb and apologize. I just wish they would eliminate all the controversy, both sides Rep. and Dem. make it sound like they are trying to do "whats best" for America. Look what they have done, one of the states that has the most gun laws restricting 'assualt weapons' is the state with the highest crime rate. I just don't trust either side they will steal your rights at every chance they get, and thats God's honest truth.
nowthisisstupid 1 year ago
I don't think you are dumb. I don't think all gov't is dumb. Sarah Palin... I don't think she is dumb. I KNOW she is dumb. But thats only one person. Your view on politics... all I can say is welcome to the good ol' USA. As far as both sides stealing your rights... again welcome to good ol' USA. The country where we have freedom of speech... just not out loud.
getemhi 1 year ago
Well, you are right and I didnt mean ALL goverment I mis-spoke. I mean all American govermet is retarded, as long as we keep our present course I forsee another civil war very soon.
nowthisisstupid 1 year ago
You know what you can do is do personal interviews on good law abiding hard working Canadians and Ame'ricans before giving them permission on"scary" weapons. Same scenario. Just don't sell them to former criminals. Our president's and primeministers are sure gonna be kicking eachothers asses when are country get's invaded by ultra nationalists and we're standing around jacking off until we die. NAPLF!!!! FUCK THE LEFT AND THE RIGHT WING OF THE EAGLE. It's all about the Beaver!!!!
mexicanseafood1 2 years ago
Comment removed
mahnameiswin 2 years ago
no its people like you that I wanna slap for saying stupid shit like that. Everyone has a voice, don't hate on someone for something like that.
GXPFiend 2 years ago
Maccain was Bush all over again. We need a Conservative, not a moderate.
mahnameiswin 2 years ago
Oh yeah, because Obamas doing such an amazing job????
topher81807 2 years ago
I'm simply saying that PALIN is in NO WAY ready to be in ANY position of major power. Maccain was a LIBERAL republican and PALIN was a political move to get women to swing with republicans. I consider myself a libertarian and thought ALL candidates in 08 we're TERRIBLE for this country, Obama Maccain, ALL OF THEM! I think Obama is a TERRIBLE PRESIDENT, but Macattack woulda been just as bad.
mahnameiswin 2 years ago
Palin had more experience in politics than Obama did. But you are right Palin was to get female votes but lets take a look at the other side of the coin. Obama was picked for the minority vote. When you look at the democratic candidates Clinton was so much more qualified in every area its fucking ridiculous. Obama is a good speaker so he could sweet talk voters and he was the first black presidential nominee so people who voted for him could say, "I helped elect the first black president".
topher81807 2 years ago
After bush, there was NO WAY another republican was going to be voted in. Obama or Clinton would have won anyways, regardless.
mahnameiswin 2 years ago
@mahnameiswin i agree. but the thing i just dont understand is what horror did bush create? sure he was a horrible speaker, so what? he graduated yale i think it was? dont hold me to that tho i know it was a good school. thats way better than most of us. and he was president during the biggest disaster since pearl harbor. do you really think clinton would have done better? he bombed a fucking aspirin factory. but God forbid a liberal screwed something up. Bush did a good job.
s2thalayer 2 years ago
How????? he hasn't even been in office for a year. Do you really expect a country to do a 180 in 10 months?
Gamebreaker08 2 years ago
Its not going to do a 180 you idiot. We have 10% job unemployment, and his wind turbines aren't going to fix that. Taxing people who GIVE US JOBS is FAIL. Nothing will be fixed, Obama will be a 1 term president.
mahnameiswin 2 years ago 38
@mahnameiswin obama does not behave like an American, hes not a patriot, hates freedom, hes a freakin muslim sympathizing traitor -- him and his radical cronies need their asses kicked out and eliminated, period. this guy is the worst thing that ever happened to the US, maybe if we get out of this mess people will be more careful who they vote for next time - hell theyre all crooks anyway---- but at least get one thats half a patriot-lol
yambo59 1 year ago
@mahnameiswin i agree that obama will be a 1 term president but keeping the tax cuts for the wealthy is not going to help pay the trillions that bush put on us. dont listen to right wing propaganda or left wing propaganda, the companies who are laying people off are making billions in profits. IBM made enough money last year to pay over 6 million americans 47,000 dollars a year that the rich pricks at the top still would have had enough money to buy their 10th DREAM HOME.
piketyl000 1 year ago
@mahnameiswin correct but the Unemployment.
That rate is a true but those are who receive benefits after 3 monthes you aren't existing on that list so the the number of unemployed, who have gotten and/or are recieving or done recieving is 36.234%
Uknown231231231 10 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@mahnameiswin correct but the Unemployment.
That rate is a true but those are who receive benefits after 3 monthes you aren't existing on that list so the the number of unemployed, who have gotten and/or are receiving or done receiving is 36.234%
Uknown231231231 10 months ago
yeah they were all bad and palin looked like she would have been terrible but damn Obama has been doing the owrst possible job with foreign relations he just pissed off the Norwegians and already made us look stupid infront of several other counties its pathetic anyone (even Palin) could do better
RON PAUL 2012!!!!!!
bobwatters 2 years ago 2
I think Ron is a bit too Libertarian to be in office. Maybe if he went a little more conservative he would be ok.
mahnameiswin 2 years ago
u mean republican not conservative but he is to libertarian to get elected but not to be in office we need someone to shrink down this crazy bureaucratic mess they call the U.S. gov't
bobwatters 2 years ago
OMG! Stupid.Really a barrel shroud? Clearly this person meant well but a clear example of an un-informed politician. The main argument is not about taking away our right to bear arms. Its about safety or the perceived notion that if we limited the access to assault weapons there would be less gun crime. I would rather have an extensive back ground check and even wait 30 days, pay for a comprehensive background check etc. But let me buy the firearm of my choic
samsneed1972 2 years ago
This is why he lost
suprfunk80 2 years ago
pick a side you wuss
Automobile577 2 years ago
Wow! Even a tight assed conservative like McCain said he would consider an assault weapon's ban. What a freaking prick. It's annoying when the people running the country don't even know the facts. Like that "assault weapons" barely cause any deaths a year, and when the last ban was passed crime had NO CHANGE. They also don't realize that no gun control measure has reduced crime rates or deaths. Although yeah, let's ban them anyways, just incase. It's only our right as an American.
chaosofhumanity 2 years ago 3
McCain totally misses the point. Any time you hear a politician talking about "sporting use" in a 2nd amendment discussion, they either don't understand the 2nd amendment or they're trying to keep you from understanding it. The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
McCain made "lock up your self defense" anti-gun public service announcements that were a lot like the DC gun ban nonsense where guns had to be unloaded and locked up separately from the ammo, making them useless for defense.
Liberty4Ever 2 years ago 2
At least McC is not a traitor to the constitution.
thablackmarkit 2 years ago
now someone has the same thinking as me?
masterskyrunner 2 years ago
Sure. But by your own logic, the 2A allows Joe citizen to own a shoulder launched surface-to-air missile !
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
If the 2A is an assurance that tyrrany would never come to the American people, then why doesn't it just say so?
... and you need to read up on this whole Hitler/Stalin/gun control thing. It's a complete myth. Neither "disarmed their people" - they had no guns to start with !
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
Hmm. Not quite. The 2A was written when the US needed to be able to muster a readily armed and trained militia with which to repel an invading power - the big threat of the day being the British army.
But now you have a professional standing army armed with the latest fire-power - fire-power you do NOT want to put in the hands of average citizen. Plus there's the fact that the US is geographically impossible to invade.
The 2A was relevant to the 18th century only.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
So Einstein, your saying all the other amendments like the first (Freedom of speech) only relates to the 18th century. No, they are all rights that our founding fathers knew we would need if the country was to stay free. Why don't you read some of the fonding fathers memoirs and you'll see how wrong you are.
48238 2 years ago
No. You are distorting my words. I am saying that the 2A is not about firearms - just arms. The founders spoke about firearms in their writings - but this is only reasonable - but they couldn't have written about semi-auto weapons, hard drugs, cities is of millions of people, cars, aeroplanes, could they ?
The founders were not endowed with mystic wisdom. They were not prophets. They were just clever, and human. You expect to much from them.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
Your right they weren't mystics but they just threw of the shackles of oppression and left the rights of people wide open to do the same. They expected more of us. I don't expect too much of the founding fathers but they expected so much from us. They country is almost in the same shape that England was. Opressive goverment that wants to question and control everything we do. The founding fathers wanted us (future generations) to stay the course by anymeans necessary.
48238 2 years ago
Oh, the muskets and rifles that the citizens used in the 18th century were state of the art weapons. Snipers were introduced using specialized hunting rifles. Why shouldn't I own the same small arms the military uses? I am responsible. The materials and equipment I'm around are far more dangerous than a shoulder fired missile.
48238 2 years ago
For the simple reason that if you are permitted to own such weaponry, then it will be inevitable that the criminals and crazies will also have such weaponry.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
There on laws so that they won't. they are not enforced. Liberal laywers, judges and politicians have allowed this. Most people drive sanely and follow the laws regarding automobiles. Yet some people do not. You revoke the privilege of the minority that doesn't, not the majority that obeys they law.
48238 2 years ago
"There on laws so that they won't." Alas, such laws will ALWAYS be inadequate, no matter what they are. This is because when a citizen decides to break a law, and move from law-abiding to criminal, they are often already armed with a handgun they legitimately bought for self-defence. Same for the mentally ill - symptoms can develop after the purchase of the gun.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
Okay. Cars can be driven responsibly or irresponsibly and the different is reflected in the number of accidents. But your argument ONLY addresses accidents. If someone WANTS to kill another, they'll use a gun, not a car. This is the problem.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
Actually, not long ago, we saw that someone who wants to kill someone who doesn't have a gun, knife, or something will use a car if they get the chance.
Now, even if you ban something entirely, from any civilian possession at all, what's to keep criminals from getting it? They can still get it from boarder jumpers, police and military, or other means, which they use to get weapons now, and lawful civilians will have no means to protect themselves from such weapons.
AreThereNoMoreNames 2 years ago
indeed. if you want a great example of how gun control fails, just look at Mexico.
autopsy87 2 years ago
Mexico has serious problem with guns being smuggled in from the US, often as payment for drugs supplied by the cartels. Many more handguns are, after all, manufactured in the US.
Like those US states with strong gun control - the guns are imported over state lines from US states with lax gun control.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
Actually, as it turns out, a small fraction of guns recovered in Mexico came from the U.S. illegally. The 90% being paraded around is an absolute lie. Clinton did send the Mexican government a large number of firearms, including several hundred Barret M82 .50 caliber rifles, which now are being paraded around as a reason to ban civilian ownership whenever one is discovered in the hands of the cartel. Really, very few Mexican firearms went from civilian ownership right to Mexico.
AreThereNoMoreNames 2 years ago
There are many things that are banned entirely - and yes - you can still buy them. But you are forgetting about the COST. You'll never stop criminals getting hold of guns entirely, but you can make them prohibitively expensive. How ? Maximise the risk for the gun supplier - make the criminals pay through the nose for the risk taken by the supplier. And you want a good supplier who won't betray you when he gets caught - you'll just have to pay more.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
Those things that are banned are, for the most part, still widely available, and still not prohibitively expensive. Look at Mexico, guns are illegal, and drugs were before, and the government had no control, regulation, or record over the huge black market importing and exporting drugs and illegal firearms.
True, you'll never stop criminals from getting guns, but you will stop law-abiding citizens from keeping themselves safe from those criminals, and that's all you're going to do, really.
AreThereNoMoreNames 2 years ago
Drugs are illegal but cheap in Mexico because they can be mass produced from the local flora. Guns are illegal but cheap in Mexico because they can be imported in bulk from the US.
To drive up the price you need two things, scarcity and illegality. One without the other doesn't work.
You distinguish between law-abiding and criminals as though they are two different social groups. They are not.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
I can't make 1000 handguns a day, but I can make one in a day or two from an investment casting. I don't need a factory for that. 1000 people could easily keep production going after a ban working from their homes.
Mexico legalized narcotics in order to undermine the drug cartels. If the U.S. really wanted to end the Mexican drug violence problem, they could do the same.
You might be in the same group in your country as criminals, but not here. I'm not in the same group as them.
AreThereNoMoreNames 2 years ago
Employing a 1000 people to make 1000 guns per day will make each gun cost the same as 1 person making 1 gun per day. Plus there is the added risk of getting caught, Nope .The black market price for a gun would still go up.
Criminals and law-abiding are not separate! Many criminals regard themselves as decent law-abiding people. And to say that anybody who has ever committed crime is instantly going to break every law there is "because that's what criminals do" is plain silly.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago
I might think I'm Jesus, but that doesn't make it true. Criminals generally do break laws, it's what makes them criminals. Most violent crimes are committed by repeat offenders.
As for the black market, the price might go up, it might go down because they don't have to pay for insurance and advertising, but it's not going to take guns out of the market. Even in the U.K., where guns are banned, people are making guns out of all kinds of things. Extremely cheap shotguns can be made of pipe.
AreThereNoMoreNames 2 years ago
Shotguns can be made easily - but you're missing my point. Guns are not being made in factory quantities in the UK - there is no market for criminals to make it worthwhile to start such a factory. The best they can do is convert a couple of replicas in their garages at the weekend.
In the US, factories are flooding the US market with legal weaponry. Market forces - competition - between manufacturers keeps the prices down.
ToothbrushMan 2 years ago