# 2nd Amendment should not be infringed upon because of Las Vegas shooter.



## 52ndStreet

We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.


----------



## Meathead

It's not going to happen anyway. I think certain sensible restrictions should be enacted, but the 2nd Amendment is safe.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Meathead said:


> It's not going to happen anyway. I think certain sensible restrictions should be enacted, but the 2nd Amendment is safe.


we already have plenty of sensible restrictions and quite a few that aren't so sensible


----------



## Taz

52ndStreet said:


> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.


We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.


----------



## miketx

Taz said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
Click to expand...

No one except regressives accept it and they are the ones doing it.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Taz said:


> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.


Who is accepting regular mass shootings?  

Oh, you want us to give up our freedom for your false sense of security.  Got it.


----------



## Taz

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> 
> 
> *Who is accepting regular mass shootings?  *
> 
> Oh, you want us to give up our freedom for your false sense of security.  Got it.
Click to expand...

Looks like YOU have.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Taz said:


> Looks like YOU have.


Very well.

I accept regular mass shootings. 

In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.


----------



## Taz

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like YOU have.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
Click to expand...

Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

Taz said:


> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.


Maybe you should leave.  It's safer in France, I hear.


----------



## Taz

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should leave.  It's safer in France, I hear.
Click to expand...

Thanks for proving my point.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Taz said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
Click to expand...

What's this We shit?


----------



## 2aguy

Meathead said:


> It's not going to happen anyway. I think certain sensible restrictions should be enacted, but the 2nd Amendment is safe.




Did you see the latest ruling by the 4th Circuit Court of appeals...on the Baltimore Assault weapon ban...it guts the 2nd amendment.....


The Conspiracy To Dismember Heller

The consequences of the ruling cannot be overstated. In essence, the 4th Circuit has contrived a brand-new constitutional “test,” the practical effect of which is the removal of Second Amendment protection from any firearm that a judge happens not to like. 

In _Heller_, the Supreme Court took three related positions: 

*First,* that firearms “in common use” may not be banned; 

*second,* that while “dangerous” arms may be regulated, only those that are “unusual” in addition are eligible for prohibition; and 

*third*, that a government may not ban certain types of guns on the understanding that other types remain available.

In a follow-up case, _Caetano v. Massachusetts_, Justice Samuel Alito stated in his concurrence that “the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes.” 


*Disgracefully, the 4th Circuit ignored all these prescriptions—which it was duty-bound to follow—electing instead to devise its own rule: that if a weapon is “most useful in military service,” it enjoys no constitutional protection. *

*In so doing, the court thumbed its nose at its superiors and quietly rewrote the law for millions of Americans.*


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like YOU have.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
Click to expand...



No...our violence rate is going down.....Europes is going up....

And your mass shootings....killed more people than ours.....even when they used a rental Truck....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600  million guns in private hands and over 16.3  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...

-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


----------



## Taz

Yousaidwhat said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's this We shit?
Click to expand...

Why? You accept mass shootings on a regular basis?


----------



## Taz

2aguy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like YOU have.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...our violence rate is going down.....Europes is going up....
> 
> And your mass shootings....killed more people than ours.....even when they used a rental Truck....
> 
> We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600  million guns in private hands and over 16.3  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
> 
> -- gun murder down 49%
> --gun crime down 75%
> --violent crime down 72%
> 
> Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
> 
> Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
Click to expand...

So it went from extremely sky-high over the moon to severely sky-high over the moon. Get a new horse to beat.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Taz said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's this We shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? You accept mass shootings on a regular basis?
Click to expand...

Yeah. Sure I do.

I wake up every morning hoping to see 100's killed on my tv screen.

Again. What's this "we" shit?


----------



## Taz

Yousaidwhat said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's this We shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? You accept mass shootings on a regular basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah. Sure I do.
> 
> I wake up every morning hoping to see 100's killed on my tv screen.
> 
> Again. What's this "we" shit?
Click to expand...

So then you're part of the "we".


----------



## TyroneSlothrop

52ndStreet said:


> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.


I am sure that a Big League Patriot like you is all in Favor of Trump destroying Freedom of the Press , revoking Licenses , if he does not like what some network is reporting...you are all in  with Trump on revoking the First Amendment ....


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's this We shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? You accept mass shootings on a regular basis?
Click to expand...

Where has anyone accepted it?

I want people who do it to be executed.

you need to understand that last part  PEOPLE WHO COMMIT MASS MURDER not people who don't


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's this We shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? You accept mass shootings on a regular basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where has anyone accepted it?
> 
> I want people who do it to be executed.
> 
> you need to understand that last part  PEOPLE WHO COMMIT MASS MURDER not people who don't
Click to expand...

You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.


----------



## miketx

Taz said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like YOU have.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
Click to expand...

No it hasn't. People have always murdered. Look at other countries it's the same or worse. People have a right to defend themselves regardless of of what criminals do and no laws will stop criminals, anyone  who thinks so is a fool or has an agenda.


----------



## Taz

miketx said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like YOU have.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it hasn't. People have always murdered. Look at other countries it's the same or worse. People have a right to defend themselves regardless of of what criminals do and no laws will stop criminals, anyone  who thinks so is a fool or has an agenda.
Click to expand...

I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?


----------



## miketx

Taz said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like YOU have.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it hasn't. People have always murdered. Look at other countries it's the same or worse. People have a right to defend themselves regardless of of what criminals do and no laws will stop criminals, anyone  who thinks so is a fool or has an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?
Click to expand...

"something" be done. LOL! Tell us what would have stopped it. Perhaps making shooting people illegal?


----------



## danielpalos

52ndStreet said:


> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.


We have a Second Amendment.  There should be no security problems in our free States.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Taz said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's this We shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? You accept mass shootings on a regular basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah. Sure I do.
> 
> I wake up every morning hoping to see 100's killed on my tv screen.
> 
> Again. What's this "we" shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then you're part of the "we".
Click to expand...

No. I am not part of this "we."

What makes you think I accept mass murder.

These people need to be permanently  removed from Society. 

Preferably by public execution.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's this We shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? You accept mass shootings on a regular basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where has anyone accepted it?
> 
> I want people who do it to be executed.
> 
> you need to understand that last part  PEOPLE WHO COMMIT MASS MURDER not people who don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
Click to expand...

And explain how you intend to stop them?

By disarming everyone else?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Taz said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like YOU have.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it hasn't. People have always murdered. Look at other countries it's the same or worse. People have a right to defend themselves regardless of of what criminals do and no laws will stop criminals, anyone  who thinks so is a fool or has an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?
Click to expand...

I can demand something be done.

None of my firearms have been used in mass shootings.

What do you intend to do, besides disarming everyone?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's this We shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? You accept mass shootings on a regular basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where has anyone accepted it?
> 
> I want people who do it to be executed.
> 
> you need to understand that last part  PEOPLE WHO COMMIT MASS MURDER not people who don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
Click to expand...


----------



## Taz

Yousaidwhat said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> 
> 
> What's this We shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? You accept mass shootings on a regular basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Yeah. Sure I do.
> 
> I wake up every morning hoping to see 100's killed on my tv screen.
> 
> Again. What's this "we" shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So then you're part of the "we".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No. I am not part of this "we."
> 
> What makes you think I accept mass murder.
> 
> These people need to be permanently  removed from Society.
> 
> Preferably by public execution.
Click to expand...

I guess that English isn't your first language, you misinterpreted what I said.


----------



## bodecea

52ndStreet said:


> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.


I am a 2nd Amendment supporting Democrat.   In answer to your title question:   No.


----------



## Taz

Yousaidwhat said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> 
> 
> What's this We shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? You accept mass shootings on a regular basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where has anyone accepted it?
> 
> I want people who do it to be executed.
> 
> you need to understand that last part  PEOPLE WHO COMMIT MASS MURDER not people who don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And explain how you intend to stop them?
> 
> By disarming everyone else?
Click to expand...

By copying laws in countries that have the least of regular mass shootings.


----------



## Taz

Yousaidwhat said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like YOU have.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it hasn't. People have always murdered. Look at other countries it's the same or worse. People have a right to defend themselves regardless of of what criminals do and no laws will stop criminals, anyone  who thinks so is a fool or has an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can demand something be done.
> 
> None of my firearms have been used in mass shootings.
> 
> What do you intend to do, besides disarming everyone?
Click to expand...

See what I'm saying? You're not even going to attempt to try anything because your brain is stuck on your false mantra.


----------



## Taz

Yousaidwhat said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> 
> 
> What's this We shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? You accept mass shootings on a regular basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where has anyone accepted it?
> 
> I want people who do it to be executed.
> 
> you need to understand that last part  PEOPLE WHO COMMIT MASS MURDER not people who don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

So what do you propose to curb mass shootings that happen regularly in the US?


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Taz said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it hasn't. People have always murdered. Look at other countries it's the same or worse. People have a right to defend themselves regardless of of what criminals do and no laws will stop criminals, anyone  who thinks so is a fool or has an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can demand something be done.
> 
> None of my firearms have been used in mass shootings.
> 
> What do you intend to do, besides disarming everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I'm saying? You're not even going to attempt to try anything because your brain is stuck on your false mantra.
Click to expand...

False mantra?

What do you intend to do?

I can attempt to do many things.

Imprison these people for life. Total seclusion. No amenities. 

Hard labor. 

Firing squad.

An example will be set for those who think murder is acceptable.

Other countries have disarmed their citizens. And this hasn't worked.

Our mass murderers seem to have one thing in common.

Prescription medication.

Mass murder is a recent phenomenon.

Again. Besides disarming the entire nation what would you do?


----------



## miketx

Taz said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like YOU have.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it hasn't. People have always murdered. Look at other countries it's the same or worse. People have a right to defend themselves regardless of of what criminals do and no laws will stop criminals, anyone  who thinks so is a fool or has an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?
Click to expand...

He says "something" should be done. Oh it's always something. How about telling us all what?


----------



## OnePercenter

Skull Pilot said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not going to happen anyway. I think certain sensible restrictions should be enacted, but the 2nd Amendment is safe.
> 
> 
> 
> we already have plenty of sensible restrictions and quite a few that aren't so sensible
Click to expand...


You can buy an AK-47 easier than allergy medicine. How is that sensible? 

IMO as a gun owner; there is no need for any civilian to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon. 

Here are all the victims of the Las Vegas shooting


----------



## Taz

Yousaidwhat said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't. People have always murdered. Look at other countries it's the same or worse. People have a right to defend themselves regardless of of what criminals do and no laws will stop criminals, anyone  who thinks so is a fool or has an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can demand something be done.
> 
> None of my firearms have been used in mass shootings.
> 
> What do you intend to do, besides disarming everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I'm saying? You're not even going to attempt to try anything because your brain is stuck on your false mantra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False mantra?
> 
> What do you intend to do?
> 
> I can attempt to do many things.
> 
> Imprison these people for life. Total seclusion. No amenities.
> 
> Hard labor.
> 
> Firing squad.
> 
> An example will be set for those who think murder is acceptable.
> 
> Other countries have disarmed their citizens. And this hasn't worked.
> 
> Our mass murderers seem to have one thing in common.
> 
> Prescription medication.
> 
> Mass murder is a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Again. Besides disarming the entire nation what would you do?
Click to expand...

Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.


----------



## Taz

miketx said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like YOU have.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it hasn't. People have always murdered. Look at other countries it's the same or worse. People have a right to defend themselves regardless of of what criminals do and no laws will stop criminals, anyone  who thinks so is a fool or has an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He says "something" should be done. Oh it's always something. How about telling us all what?
Click to expand...

If you're asking me, that "something" could be what other countries do that don't have mass shooting regularly. There are plenty of them.


----------



## miketx

Taz said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it hasn't. People have always murdered. Look at other countries it's the same or worse. People have a right to defend themselves regardless of of what criminals do and no laws will stop criminals, anyone  who thinks so is a fool or has an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He says "something" should be done. Oh it's always something. How about telling us all what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're asking me, that "something" could be what other countries do that don't have mass shooting regularly. There are plenty of them.
Click to expand...

I see, the old gun ban that doesn't work trick. In other words you don't have any solution except the tired liberal bullshit of more gun restrictions or bans. If you were honest you would see that doesn't work, anywhere. Face it, all liberals want a totalitarian state where rights are taken. In free a society you are going to have people who go off and kill people. In a sick society like ours where the mantra of hate is preached daily by the lying fascist media and it's brain washed minions, and swallowed by the parrots, you have higher than normal attack rates from brain washed losers who have drank to much of the koolaid you pedal. The current state of the media in this country imo, is the biggest threat to freedom yet, seconded only by the amoral and corrupt education system which is doing its best to turn out obedient drones.


----------



## Yousaidwhat

Taz said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't. People have always murdered. Look at other countries it's the same or worse. People have a right to defend themselves regardless of of what criminals do and no laws will stop criminals, anyone  who thinks so is a fool or has an agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can demand something be done.
> 
> None of my firearms have been used in mass shootings.
> 
> What do you intend to do, besides disarming everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I'm saying? You're not even going to attempt to try anything because your brain is stuck on your false mantra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False mantra?
> 
> What do you intend to do?
> 
> I can attempt to do many things.
> 
> Imprison these people for life. Total seclusion. No amenities.
> 
> Hard labor.
> 
> Firing squad.
> 
> An example will be set for those who think murder is acceptable.
> 
> Other countries have disarmed their citizens. And this hasn't worked.
> 
> Our mass murderers seem to have one thing in common.
> 
> Prescription medication.
> 
> Mass murder is a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Again. Besides disarming the entire nation what would you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
Click to expand...

The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.

This problem is going to have to addressed another way.


----------



## miketx

OnePercenter said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not going to happen anyway. I think certain sensible restrictions should be enacted, but the 2nd Amendment is safe.
> 
> 
> 
> we already have plenty of sensible restrictions and quite a few that aren't so sensible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can buy an AK-47 easier than allergy medicine. How is that sensible?
> 
> IMO as a gun owner; there is no need for any civilian to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
> 
> Here are all the victims of the Las Vegas shooting
Click to expand...

Prove your claim. I don't need a reason to own a gun, I have a right. And SCUM like you will Not TAKE IT.


----------



## Taz

miketx said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't. People have always murdered. Look at other countries it's the same or worse. People have a right to defend themselves regardless of of what criminals do and no laws will stop criminals, anyone  who thinks so is a fool or has an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He says "something" should be done. Oh it's always something. How about telling us all what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're asking me, that "something" could be what other countries do that don't have mass shooting regularly. There are plenty of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see, the old gun ban that doesn't work trick. In other words you don't have any solution except the tired liberal bullshit of more gun restrictions or bans. If you were honest you would see that doesn't work, anywhere. Face it, all liberals want a totalitarian state where rights are taken. In free a society you are going to have people who go off and kill people. In a sick society like ours where the mantra of hate is preached daily by the lying fascist media and it's brain washed minions, and swallowed by the parrots, you have higher than normal attack rates from brain washed losers who have drank to much of the koolaid you pedal. The current state of the media in this country imo, is the biggest threat to freedom yet, seconded only by the amoral and corrupt education system which is doing its best to turn out obedient drones.
Click to expand...

You should seek help for your paranoid delusion. And please, turn your guns in at the same time.


----------



## Taz

Yousaidwhat said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?
> 
> 
> 
> I can demand something be done.
> 
> None of my firearms have been used in mass shootings.
> 
> What do you intend to do, besides disarming everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I'm saying? You're not even going to attempt to try anything because your brain is stuck on your false mantra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False mantra?
> 
> What do you intend to do?
> 
> I can attempt to do many things.
> 
> Imprison these people for life. Total seclusion. No amenities.
> 
> Hard labor.
> 
> Firing squad.
> 
> An example will be set for those who think murder is acceptable.
> 
> Other countries have disarmed their citizens. And this hasn't worked.
> 
> Our mass murderers seem to have one thing in common.
> 
> Prescription medication.
> 
> Mass murder is a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Again. Besides disarming the entire nation what would you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.
> 
> This problem is going to have to addressed another way.
Click to expand...

Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.


----------



## OnePercenter

miketx said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not going to happen anyway. I think certain sensible restrictions should be enacted, but the 2nd Amendment is safe.
> 
> 
> 
> we already have plenty of sensible restrictions and quite a few that aren't so sensible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can buy an AK-47 easier than allergy medicine. How is that sensible?
> 
> IMO as a gun owner; there is no need for any civilian to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
> 
> Here are all the victims of the Las Vegas shooting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove your claim. I don't need a reason to own a gun, I have a right. And SCUM like you will Not TAKE IT.
Click to expand...


I didn't write that you didn't have a right. My opinion in no way infringes your rights under the second amendment.


----------



## miketx

OnePercenter said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not going to happen anyway. I think certain sensible restrictions should be enacted, but the 2nd Amendment is safe.
> 
> 
> 
> we already have plenty of sensible restrictions and quite a few that aren't so sensible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can buy an AK-47 easier than allergy medicine. How is that sensible?
> 
> IMO as a gun owner; there is no need for any civilian to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
> 
> Here are all the victims of the Las Vegas shooting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove your claim. I don't need a reason to own a gun, I have a right. And SCUM like you will Not TAKE IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't write that you didn't have a right. My opinion in no way infringes your rights under the second amendment.
Click to expand...

No but your intent does.


----------



## miketx

Taz said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't. People have always murdered. Look at other countries it's the same or worse. People have a right to defend themselves regardless of of what criminals do and no laws will stop criminals, anyone  who thinks so is a fool or has an agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> He says "something" should be done. Oh it's always something. How about telling us all what?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're asking me, that "something" could be what other countries do that don't have mass shooting regularly. There are plenty of them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I see, the old gun ban that doesn't work trick. In other words you don't have any solution except the tired liberal bullshit of more gun restrictions or bans. If you were honest you would see that doesn't work, anywhere. Face it, all liberals want a totalitarian state where rights are taken. In free a society you are going to have people who go off and kill people. In a sick society like ours where the mantra of hate is preached daily by the lying fascist media and it's brain washed minions, and swallowed by the parrots, you have higher than normal attack rates from brain washed losers who have drank to much of the koolaid you pedal. The current state of the media in this country imo, is the biggest threat to freedom yet, seconded only by the amoral and corrupt education system which is doing its best to turn out obedient drones.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You should seek help for your paranoid delusion. And please, turn your guns in at the same time.
Click to expand...

Deflection noted commie. Come get them. make me turn them in.


----------



## Leo123

Taz said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can demand something be done.
> 
> None of my firearms have been used in mass shootings.
> 
> What do you intend to do, besides disarming everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> See what I'm saying? You're not even going to attempt to try anything because your brain is stuck on your false mantra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False mantra?
> 
> What do you intend to do?
> 
> I can attempt to do many things.
> 
> Imprison these people for life. Total seclusion. No amenities.
> 
> Hard labor.
> 
> Firing squad.
> 
> An example will be set for those who think murder is acceptable.
> 
> Other countries have disarmed their citizens. And this hasn't worked.
> 
> Our mass murderers seem to have one thing in common.
> 
> Prescription medication.
> 
> Mass murder is a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Again. Besides disarming the entire nation what would you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.
> 
> This problem is going to have to addressed another way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
Click to expand...


So... in YOUR future only the the government will be allowed to have guns....good luck with that.


----------



## Leo123

OnePercenter said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not going to happen anyway. I think certain sensible restrictions should be enacted, but the 2nd Amendment is safe.
> 
> 
> 
> we already have plenty of sensible restrictions and quite a few that aren't so sensible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can buy an AK-47 easier than allergy medicine. How is that sensible?
> 
> IMO as a gun owner; there is no need for any civilian to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
> 
> Here are all the victims of the Las Vegas shooting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove your claim. I don't need a reason to own a gun, I have a right. And SCUM like you will Not TAKE IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't write that you didn't have a right. My opinion in no way infringes your rights under the second amendment.
Click to expand...


The 2nd amendment promotes a standing CIVILIAN army.  (militia)  Why shouldn't civilians have access to the VERY SAME weapons?


----------



## Taz

Leo123 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> See what I'm saying? You're not even going to attempt to try anything because your brain is stuck on your false mantra.
> 
> 
> 
> False mantra?
> 
> What do you intend to do?
> 
> I can attempt to do many things.
> 
> Imprison these people for life. Total seclusion. No amenities.
> 
> Hard labor.
> 
> Firing squad.
> 
> An example will be set for those who think murder is acceptable.
> 
> Other countries have disarmed their citizens. And this hasn't worked.
> 
> Our mass murderers seem to have one thing in common.
> 
> Prescription medication.
> 
> Mass murder is a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Again. Besides disarming the entire nation what would you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.
> 
> This problem is going to have to addressed another way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... in YOUR future only the the government will be allowed to have guns....good luck with that.
Click to expand...

I don't need a gun. Never have.


----------



## Leo123

Taz said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> False mantra?
> 
> What do you intend to do?
> 
> I can attempt to do many things.
> 
> Imprison these people for life. Total seclusion. No amenities.
> 
> Hard labor.
> 
> Firing squad.
> 
> An example will be set for those who think murder is acceptable.
> 
> Other countries have disarmed their citizens. And this hasn't worked.
> 
> Our mass murderers seem to have one thing in common.
> 
> Prescription medication.
> 
> Mass murder is a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Again. Besides disarming the entire nation what would you do?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.
> 
> This problem is going to have to addressed another way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... in YOUR future only the the government will be allowed to have guns....good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need a gun. Never have.
Click to expand...


Hey, if you don't need a gun don't get one just don't try to tell me I don't need one.


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can demand something be done.
> 
> None of my firearms have been used in mass shootings.
> 
> What do you intend to do, besides disarming everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> See what I'm saying? You're not even going to attempt to try anything because your brain is stuck on your false mantra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False mantra?
> 
> What do you intend to do?
> 
> I can attempt to do many things.
> 
> Imprison these people for life. Total seclusion. No amenities.
> 
> Hard labor.
> 
> Firing squad.
> 
> An example will be set for those who think murder is acceptable.
> 
> Other countries have disarmed their citizens. And this hasn't worked.
> 
> Our mass murderers seem to have one thing in common.
> 
> Prescription medication.
> 
> Mass murder is a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Again. Besides disarming the entire nation what would you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.
> 
> This problem is going to have to addressed another way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
Click to expand...



Yes.....everyone thought Germany was civilized too.....especially the people who were marching into the gas chambers as they tried to reassure themselves that one day, their nightmare would be over.....


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can demand something be done.
> 
> None of my firearms have been used in mass shootings.
> 
> What do you intend to do, besides disarming everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> See what I'm saying? You're not even going to attempt to try anything because your brain is stuck on your false mantra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False mantra?
> 
> What do you intend to do?
> 
> I can attempt to do many things.
> 
> Imprison these people for life. Total seclusion. No amenities.
> 
> Hard labor.
> 
> Firing squad.
> 
> An example will be set for those who think murder is acceptable.
> 
> Other countries have disarmed their citizens. And this hasn't worked.
> 
> Our mass murderers seem to have one thing in common.
> 
> Prescription medication.
> 
> Mass murder is a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Again. Besides disarming the entire nation what would you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.
> 
> This problem is going to have to addressed another way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
Click to expand...



Yeah.....with 600,000,000 guns in private hands, and over 16,300,000 people carrying guns for self defense we will have a few people who are evil....in 2016 there were 6 of them who murdered 71 people with guns...out of 600,000,000.

In France, on evil guy used a rental truck to murder 89 people and injure over 450....in one attack.

In 2016, knives were used to murder 1,604 people...

So tell us, genius...which tool was deadlier in 2016... guns used in mass shootings, or stabbings?

And tell us genius.....if you disarm Americans, Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders....and also mass public shootings......so if you take their guns.....you want those people to be raped, robbed and murdered and to be victims of mass shootings...

So..which is a larger number....

1,500,000 crimes stopped or 71 people murdered by random nuts?

And then you have this.....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600  million guns in private hands and over 16.3  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's this We shit?
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You accept mass shootings on a regular basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where has anyone accepted it?
> 
> I want people who do it to be executed.
> 
> you need to understand that last part  PEOPLE WHO COMMIT MASS MURDER not people who don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And explain how you intend to stop them?
> 
> By disarming everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By copying laws in countries that have the least of regular mass shootings.
Click to expand...



You mean Britain....where they did everything you want, they banned and confisated guns...and the only reason they don't have more mass public shootings is dumb luck, bad shooting and their nuts just don't do them as often.....?

And where after they banned guns......their gun crime rates skyrocketed and keep going up...you mean like that?

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year  -  a rise of 89 per cent. 

The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent . 




========



Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show

Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.

=========



Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.

Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime

A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years. 

----

He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger. 

-----

Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.

Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma. 

-----

*Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012. *

*He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns. *

Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that *handguns *and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.

He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's this We shit?
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You accept mass shootings on a regular basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where has anyone accepted it?
> 
> I want people who do it to be executed.
> 
> you need to understand that last part  PEOPLE WHO COMMIT MASS MURDER not people who don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And explain how you intend to stop them?
> 
> By disarming everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By copying laws in countries that have the least of regular mass shootings.
Click to expand...



You mean like Australia...where the only reason they haven't had a mass public shooting is because of dumb luck and bad shooting?

Tell us....since you didn't do it the last time you were asked.....which Australian gun laws kept these shooters from becoming mass public shooters...

Notice...these public shootings are all after Australia banned and confiscated guns......

Timeline of major crimes in Australia - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

25 January 1996 – Hillcrest murders – Peter May shot and killed his three children, his estranged wife and her parents in the Brisbane suburb of Hillcrest before killing himself.[54]

16 August 1998 – Victorian police officers Gary Silk and Rodney Miller were shot dead in an ambush by Bendali Debs and Jason Joseph Roberts in the Moorabbin Police murders.

3 August 1999 – La Trobe University shooting – Jonathan Brett Horrocks walked into the cafeteria in La Trobe university in Melbourne Victoria armed with a 38 caliber revolver handgun and opened fire killing Leon Capraro the boss and manager off the cafeteria and wounding a woman who was a student at the university.

26 May 2002 – A Vietnamese man walked into a Vietnamese wedding reception in Cabramatta Sydney, New South Wales armed with a handgun and opened fire wounding seven people.


*21 October 2002 – Monash University shooting – Huan Xiang opened fire in a tutorial room, killing two and injuring five.*



*18 June 2007 – Melbourne CBD shooting – Christopher Wayne Hudson opened fire on three people, killing one and seriously wounding two others who intervened when Hudson was assaulting his girlfriend at a busy Melbourne intersection during the morning peak. He gave himself up to police in Wallan, Victoria on 20 June.[71]*

28 April 2011 – 2011 Hectorville siege – Donato Anthony Corbo shot dead Kobus and Annetjie Snyman and their son-in-law Luc Mombers and seriously wounded Mr Mombers' 14-year-old son Marcel and a police officer at Hectorville, South Australia before being arrested after an eight-hour stand off.

28 April 2012 – A man opened fire in a busy shopping mall in Robina on the Gold Coast shooting Bandidos bikie Jacques Teamo. A woman who was an innocent bystander was also injured from a shotgun blast to the leg. Neither of the victims died, but the incident highlighted the recent increase in gun crime across major Australian cities including Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.[_citation needed_]

23 May 2012 – Christopher 'Badness' Binse, a career criminal well known to police, was arrested after a 44-hour siege at an East Keilor home in Melbourne's north west. During the siege, Binse fired several shots at police and refused to co-operate with negotiators; eventually tear gas had to be used to force him out of the house, at which point he refused to put down his weapon and was then sprayed with a volley of non-lethal bullets.[_citation needed_]

8 March 2013 – Queen Street mall siege – Lee Matthew Hiller entered the shopping mall on Queen Street Brisbane Queensland armed with a revolver and threatened shoppers and staff with the revolver, causing a 90-minute siege which ended when Hiller was shot and wounded in the arm by a police officer from the elite Specialist Emergency Response Team. Hiller was then later taken to hospital and was treated for his injury; he pleaded gulity to 20 charges and was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail with a non-parole period of two years and three months.[_citation needed_]
*9 September 2014 – Lockhart massacre* – Geoff Hunt shot and killed his wife, Kim, his 10-year-old son Fletcher, and his daughters Mia, eight and Phoebe, six before killing himself on a farm in Lockhart in the Riverina district near Wagga Wagga New South Wales. The body of Geoff Hunt and a firearm are later found in a dam on the farm by police divers and a suicide note written by Geoff Hunt is also found inside the house on the farm.[_citation needed_]

7 November 2014 – Jordy Brook carjacked a Channel 7 news cameraman at gun point during a crime spree on the Sunshine Coast, Queensland. He was later captured and arrested by police after luring police on a high speed chase and crashing the car.[_citation needed_


*15 December 2014 – 2014 Sydney hostage crisis – Seventeen people were taken hostage in a cafe in Martin Place, Sydney by Man Haron Monis. The hostage crisis was resolved in the early hours of 16 December, sixteen hours after it commenced, when armed police stormed the premises. Monis and two hostages were killed in the course of the crisis.[87]*

*27 June 2015 – Hermidale triple murder –* the bodies of three people, two men and a woman are found shot dead on a property in a rural farming community in the town of Hermidale west of Nyngan, the bodies of 28-year-old Jacob Cumberland his father 59-year-old Stephen Cumberland and a 36-year-old woman were found with gun shot wounds, the body of Jacob Cumberland was found on the drive way of the property, the body of the 36-year-old woman was found in the backyard of the property and the body of Stephen Cumberland was found in a burnt out caravan on the property. 61-year-old Allan O'Connor is later arrested and charged with the murders.

*10 September 2015 – A 49-year-old woman is shot dead in a Mc Donald's restaurant in Gold Coast by her 57-year-old ex partner, who then turned the gun on himself afterwards and shot himself dead.*


*2 October 2015 - 2015 Parramatta shooting* On 2 October 2015, Farhad Khalil Mohammad Jabar, a 15-year-old boy, shot and killed Curtis Cheng, an unarmed police civilian finance worker, outside the New South Wales Police Force headquarters in Parramatta, Australia. Jabar was subsequently shot and killed by special constables who were protecting the police station.
Here is a neater list.....

Timeline of major crimes in Australia - Wikipedia

16 January 1998 to 15 June 2009 – Melbourne gangland killings – A series of 35 murders of crime figures and their associates that began with the slaying of Alphonse Gangitano in his home, most likely by Jason Moran, the latest victim being Des Moran who was murdered in Ascot Vale on 15 June 2009.



3 August 1999 – La Trobe University shooting – Jonathan Brett Horrocks walked into the cafeteria at La Trobe university in Melbourne, Victoria, armed with a 38-calibre revolver handgun and opened fire, killing cafeteria manager Leon Capraro and wounding a woman who was a student at the university.
*21st century[edit]
2000s[edit]*

13 March 2000 – Millewa State Forest Murders – Barbara and Stephen Brooks and Stacie Willoughby were found dead, all three having been shot execution style and left in the forest.[62][63]



16 July 2001 – Peter James Knight, an anti-abortion activist, walked into an abortion clinic in East Melbourne armed with a rifle. Knight shot dead security guard Stephen Gordon Rogers and was later overpowered by staff in the abortion clinic. After his arrest, Knight was charged and convicted of murder. He was sentenced to life in prison.
26 May 2002 – A Vietnamese man walked into a Vietnamese wedding reception in Cabramatta Sydney, New South Wales armed with a handgun and opened fire wounding seven people.
14 October 2002 – Dr. Margret Tobin, the South Australian head of Mental Health Services, was shot dead by Jean Eric Gassy as she walked out of a lift in her office building.
21 October 2002 – Monash University shooting – Huan Xiang opened fire in a tutorial room, killing two and injuring five.
25 October 2003 – Greenacre double murder – A man and a woman are shot dead in a house in the suburb of Greenacre, Sydney which was the result of a feud between two Middle Eastern crime families. Twenty-four-year-old Ziad Abdulrazak was shot 10 times in the chest and head and 22-year-old Mervat Hamka was shot twice in the neck while she slept in her bedroom. Up to 100 shots were fired into the house by four men who were later arrested and convicted of the murders.



18 February 2006 – Cardross Hit and Run – Thomas Graham Towle crashed his car at high speed into a group of 13 teenagers, killing six and injuring seven near the town ofCardross, Victoria.[73]
18 June 2007 – Melbourne CBD shooting – Christopher Wayne Hudson opened fire on three people, killing one and seriously wounding two others who intervened when Hudson was assaulting his girlfriend at a busy Melbourne intersection during the morning peak. He gave himself up to police in Wallan, Victoria on 20 June.[75]

An expidited list.....

Here is a list of shootings in Australia...notice, they are all after they banned and confiscated guns...tell me....how did Australian gun laws stop these from becoming mass shootings?

I will quote a few....read the rest....

Timeline of major crimes in Australia - Wikipedia


3 August 1999 – La Trobe University shooting – Jonathan Brett Horrocks walked into the cafeteria in La Trobe university in Melbourne Victoria armed with a 38 caliber revolver handgun and opened fire killing Leon Capraro the boss and manager off the cafeteria and wounding a woman who was a student at the university.
If he had decided to keep shooting...would Australian gun laws have kept this from being a mass shooting?
Tell me...this doesn't count as a mass shooting...only because more of the victims didn't die...7 people shot......did Australian gun laws stop it from being a mass shooting?

26 May 2002 – A Vietnamese man walked into a Vietnamese wedding reception in Cabramatta Sydney, New South Wales armed with a handgun and opened fire wounding seven people.
Another one.....this shooter couldn't clear his rifle...so he only killed 2...the new standard for a mass shooting incident is 3 dead victims...so how did Australian gun laws keep this from being a mass shooting...rather than just dumb luck....?

21 October 2002 – Monash University shooting – Huan Xiang opened fire in a tutorial room, killing two and injuring five.
And had this guy decided to keep shooting.....would Australian gun laws have stopped him?  And kept this from being a mass shooting?


18 June 2007 – Melbourne CBD shooting – Christopher Wayne Hudson opened fire on three people, killing one and seriously wounding two others who intervened when Hudson was assaulting his girlfriend at a busy Melbourne intersection during the morning peak. He gave himself up to police in Wallan, Victoria on 20 June.[71]
Can you see that CNN's article is just wrong....that it implies that Australian gun control has ended their mass shootings...and that that is a lie?

And more....


28 April 2011 – 2011 Hectorville siege – Donato Anthony Corbo shot dead Kobus and Annetjie Snyman and their son-in-law Luc Mombers and seriously wounded Mr Mombers' 14-year-old son Marcel and a police officer at Hectorville, South Australia before being arrested after an eight-hour stand off.


28 April 2012 – A man opened fire in a busy shopping mall in Robina on the Gold Coast shooting Bandidos bikie Jacques Teamo. A woman who was an innocent bystander was also injured from a shotgun blast to the leg. Neither of the victims died, but the incident highlighted the recent increase in gun crime across major Australian cities including Sydney, Brisbane and Adelaide.[_citation needed_]
this guy actually went into a mall......with a gun......after they banned and confiscated them...so tell me how this doesn't show that the CNN article is a lie....

8 March 2013 – Queen Street mall siege – Lee Matthew Hiller entered the shopping mall on Queen Street Brisbane Queensland armed with a revolver and threatened shoppers and staff with the revolver, causing a 90-minute siege which ended when Hiller was shot and wounded in the arm by a police officer from the elite Specialist Emergency Response Team. Hiller was then later taken to hospital and was treated for his injury; he pleaded gulity to 20 charges and was sentenced to four-and-a-half years in jail with a non-parole period of two years and three months.[_citation needed_]
How did Australian gun control laws keep this shooting from being a muslim terrorist mass shooting?   An immigrant to Australia got a gun in a country where they banned and confiscated them and now claim their gun control laws have stopped mass shootings...


15 December 2014 – 2014 Sydney hostage crisis – Seventeen people were taken hostage in a cafe in Martin Place, Sydney by Man Haron Monis. The hostage crisis was resolved in the early hours of 16 December, sixteen hours after it commenced, when armed police stormed the premises. Monis and two hostages were killed in the course of the crisis.[87]
And how did Australian gun control keep this shooting from being a mass shooting?


10 September 2015 – A 49-year-old woman is shot dead in a Mc Donald's restaurant in Gold Coast by her 57-year-old ex partner, who then turned the gun on himself afterwards and shot himself dead.
And had this kid walked into his school.....as a muslim immigrant and simply shot 3 kids....it would have been an act of muslim terrorism and a mass shooting ....again, luck saved Australia, not their gun control laws...

And how did Australian gun laws keep these muslim teenager from going to a school with this gun and shooting a bunch of students?

Sydney police HQ shooting linked to terrorism: police commissioner

The actions of the 15-year-old gunman who shot dead a New South Wales police civilian employee were an act of terrorism, police say.

The radicalised youth of Middle Eastern background has been named as Farhad Jabar Khalil Mohammad.

He killed the police employee, Curtis Cheng, as he was leaving police headquarters at Parramatta in Sydney's west around 4:30pm yesterday.

The offender then fired several more shots at officers as they emerged from the building to respond to the incident.


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it hasn't. People have always murdered. Look at other countries it's the same or worse. People have a right to defend themselves regardless of of what criminals do and no laws will stop criminals, anyone  who thinks so is a fool or has an agenda.
> 
> 
> 
> I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I can demand something be done.
> 
> None of my firearms have been used in mass shootings.
> 
> What do you intend to do, besides disarming everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I'm saying? You're not even going to attempt to try anything because your brain is stuck on your false mantra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False mantra?
> 
> What do you intend to do?
> 
> I can attempt to do many things.
> 
> Imprison these people for life. Total seclusion. No amenities.
> 
> Hard labor.
> 
> Firing squad.
> 
> An example will be set for those who think murder is acceptable.
> 
> Other countries have disarmed their citizens. And this hasn't worked.
> 
> Our mass murderers seem to have one thing in common.
> 
> Prescription medication.
> 
> Mass murder is a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Again. Besides disarming the entire nation what would you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
Click to expand...



You do realize that their gun control laws have nothing to do with their low gun crime rate...right?  Their culture, not their gun control laws, keep all of their crime rates low......you might want to do some research on the topic....you are fooled the same way many other gun grabbers are by the Japanese gun control myth...

Japan: Gun Control and People Control



*Do the gun banners have the argument won when they point to these statistics? *

*No, they don't.*

 A realistic examination of Japanese culture leads to the conclusion that gun control has little, if anything, to do with Japan's low crime rates. Japan's lack of crime is more the result of the very extensive powers of the Japanese police, and the distinctive relation of the Japanese citizenry to authority. Further, none of the reasons which have made gun control succeed in Japan (in terms of disarming citizens) exist in the U.S.

The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.

Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.

Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.

Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.

For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors' judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%. 
Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.

In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.

The police routinely ask "suspicious" characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police -- even if the police acted illegally.

The most important element of police power, though, is not authority to search, but authority in the community. Like school teachers, Japanese policemen rate high in public esteem, especially in the countryside. Community leaders and role models, the police are trained in calligraphy and Haiku composition. In police per capita, Japan far outranks all other major democracies.

15,000 koban "police boxes" are located throughout the cities. Citizens go to the 24-hour-a-day boxes not only for street directions, but to complain about day-to-day problems, such as noisy neighbors, or to ask advice on how to raise children. Some of the policemen and their families live in the boxes. Police box officers clear 74.6% of all criminal cases cleared. Police box officers also spend time teaching neighborhood youth judo or calligraphy. The officers even hand- write their own newspapers, with information about crime and accidents, "stories about good deeds by children, and opinions of
residents."


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> What's this We shit?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Why? You accept mass shootings on a regular basis?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Where has anyone accepted it?
> 
> I want people who do it to be executed.
> 
> you need to understand that last part  PEOPLE WHO COMMIT MASS MURDER not people who don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
Click to expand...



You toss out that post as if you are posting something important.....please...tell us what "meaningful" thing you would do to stop a mass public shooter....please...enlighten us.


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like YOU have.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it hasn't. People have always murdered. Look at other countries it's the same or worse. People have a right to defend themselves regardless of of what criminals do and no laws will stop criminals, anyone  who thinks so is a fool or has an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?
Click to expand...



That would take changing our culture to theirs....and sadly, they are changing their culture to 3rd world cultures of violence......so they won't be murder free very long...


----------



## 2aguy

OnePercenter said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not going to happen anyway. I think certain sensible restrictions should be enacted, but the 2nd Amendment is safe.
> 
> 
> 
> we already have plenty of sensible restrictions and quite a few that aren't so sensible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can buy an AK-47 easier than allergy medicine. How is that sensible?
> 
> IMO as a gun owner; there is no need for any civilian to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
> 
> Here are all the victims of the Las Vegas shooting
Click to expand...



Hey...moron....you can't buy allergy medicine easier than an AK.....are you really that fucking stupid?  Or are you just trolling the thread?

Self Defense is the reason civilians need semi auto weapons...and notice to all 2nd Amendment supporters how this idiot chose his/her words.....

They said "Semi-automatic weapons" which means pistols as well as rifles.......that isn't a slip...that is what they want....all guns....


----------



## miketx

2aguy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?
> 
> 
> 
> I can demand something be done.
> 
> None of my firearms have been used in mass shootings.
> 
> What do you intend to do, besides disarming everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I'm saying? You're not even going to attempt to try anything because your brain is stuck on your false mantra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False mantra?
> 
> What do you intend to do?
> 
> I can attempt to do many things.
> 
> Imprison these people for life. Total seclusion. No amenities.
> 
> Hard labor.
> 
> Firing squad.
> 
> An example will be set for those who think murder is acceptable.
> 
> Other countries have disarmed their citizens. And this hasn't worked.
> 
> Our mass murderers seem to have one thing in common.
> 
> Prescription medication.
> 
> Mass murder is a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Again. Besides disarming the entire nation what would you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that their gun control laws have nothing to do with their low gun crime rate...right?  Their culture, not their gun control laws, keep all of their crime rates low......you might want to do some research on the topic....you are fooled the same way many other gun grabbers are by the Japanese gun control myth...
> 
> Japan: Gun Control and People Control
> 
> 
> 
> *Do the gun banners have the argument won when they point to these statistics? *
> 
> *No, they don't.*
> 
> A realistic examination of Japanese culture leads to the conclusion that gun control has little, if anything, to do with Japan's low crime rates. Japan's lack of crime is more the result of the very extensive powers of the Japanese police, and the distinctive relation of the Japanese citizenry to authority. Further, none of the reasons which have made gun control succeed in Japan (in terms of disarming citizens) exist in the U.S.
> 
> The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.
> 
> Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.
> 
> Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.
> 
> Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.
> 
> For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors' judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%.
> Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.
> 
> In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.
> 
> The police routinely ask "suspicious" characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police -- even if the police acted illegally.
> 
> The most important element of police power, though, is not authority to search, but authority in the community. Like school teachers, Japanese policemen rate high in public esteem, especially in the countryside. Community leaders and role models, the police are trained in calligraphy and Haiku composition. In police per capita, Japan far outranks all other major democracies.
> 
> 15,000 koban "police boxes" are located throughout the cities. Citizens go to the 24-hour-a-day boxes not only for street directions, but to complain about day-to-day problems, such as noisy neighbors, or to ask advice on how to raise children. Some of the policemen and their families live in the boxes. Police box officers clear 74.6% of all criminal cases cleared. Police box officers also spend time teaching neighborhood youth judo or calligraphy. The officers even hand- write their own newspapers, with information about crime and accidents, "stories about good deeds by children, and opinions of
> residents."
Click to expand...


The Japanese media doesn't constantly barrage the people with hate and outrage like they do here, and the schools teach them skills and not how to fist fuvck each other. They don't drug them up either.


----------



## BlackSand

2aguy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> See what I'm saying? You're not even going to attempt to try anything because your brain is stuck on your false mantra.
> 
> 
> 
> False mantra?
> 
> What do you intend to do?
> 
> I can attempt to do many things.
> 
> Imprison these people for life. Total seclusion. No amenities.
> 
> Hard labor.
> 
> Firing squad.
> 
> An example will be set for those who think murder is acceptable.
> 
> Other countries have disarmed their citizens. And this hasn't worked.
> 
> Our mass murderers seem to have one thing in common.
> 
> Prescription medication.
> 
> Mass murder is a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Again. Besides disarming the entire nation what would you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.
> 
> This problem is going to have to addressed another way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yeah.....with 600,000,000 guns in private hands, and over 16,300,000 people carrying guns for self defense we will have a few people who are evil....in 2016 there were 6 of them who murdered 71 people with guns...out of 600,000,000.
> 
> In France, on evil guy used a rental truck to murder 89 people and injure over 450....in one attack.
> 
> In 2016, knives were used to murder 1,604 people...
> 
> So tell us, genius...which tool was deadlier in 2016... guns used in mass shootings, or stabbings?
> 
> And tell us genius.....if you disarm Americans, Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders....and also mass public shootings......so if you take their guns.....you want those people to be raped, robbed and murdered and to be victims of mass shootings...
> 
> So..which is a larger number....
> 
> 1,500,000 crimes stopped or 71 people murdered by random nuts?
> 
> And then you have this.....
> 
> We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600  million guns in private hands and over 16.3  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
> -- gun murder down 49%
> --gun crime down 75%
> --violent crime down 72%
> 
> Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
> 
> Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
Click to expand...



All firearm deaths are homicides whether or not justifiable ... So if a cop shoots an armed suspect returning fire and kills him ... It is still a firearm homicide.
It's all in the wording ... And the words are used to press an initiative.

.


----------



## miketx

BlackSand said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> False mantra?
> 
> What do you intend to do?
> 
> I can attempt to do many things.
> 
> Imprison these people for life. Total seclusion. No amenities.
> 
> Hard labor.
> 
> Firing squad.
> 
> An example will be set for those who think murder is acceptable.
> 
> Other countries have disarmed their citizens. And this hasn't worked.
> 
> Our mass murderers seem to have one thing in common.
> 
> Prescription medication.
> 
> Mass murder is a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Again. Besides disarming the entire nation what would you do?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.
> 
> This problem is going to have to addressed another way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Any death of a human bing caused by another no matter how, is a homicide.
> 
> 
> Yeah.....with 600,000,000 guns in private hands, and over 16,300,000 people carrying guns for self defense we will have a few people who are evil....in 2016 there were 6 of them who murdered 71 people with guns...out of 600,000,000.
> 
> In France, on evil guy used a rental truck to murder 89 people and injure over 450....in one attack.
> 
> In 2016, knives were used to murder 1,604 people...
> 
> So tell us, genius...which tool was deadlier in 2016... guns used in mass shootings, or stabbings?
> 
> And tell us genius.....if you disarm Americans, Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop rapes, robberies and murders....and also mass public shootings......so if you take their guns.....you want those people to be raped, robbed and murdered and to be victims of mass shootings...
> 
> So..which is a larger number....
> 
> 1,500,000 crimes stopped or 71 people murdered by random nuts?
> 
> And then you have this.....
> 
> We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600  million guns in private hands and over 16.3  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
> -- gun murder down 49%
> --gun crime down 75%
> --violent crime down 72%
> 
> Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
> 
> Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> All firearm deaths are homicides whether or not justifiable ... So if a cop shoots an armed suspect returning fire and kills him ... It is still a firearm homicide.
> It's all in the wording ... And the words are used to press an initiative.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


----------



## AvgGuyIA

Taz said:


> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.


Commendable.

We're not giving up our guns!


----------



## airplanemechanic

And why did this get its own thread? Why didn't you just reply to one of the many threads about this already?


----------



## miketx

airplanemechanic said:


> And why did this get its own thread? Why didn't you just reply to one of the many threads about this already?


Are feeling triggered? Do you want to ban guns? Be specific here.


----------



## airplanemechanic

I feel the OP is begging for attention or something. Why didn't they just reply to another thread about this? There is no substance in the OP of the thread. It's just an opinion. No link, no nothing.


----------



## miketx

airplanemechanic said:


> I feel the OP is begging for attention or something. Why didn't they just reply to another thread about this? There is no substance in the OP of the thread. It's just an opinion. No link, no nothing.


Well, are opinion threads banned here? Seriously, I don't know if they are but why would they be? As far as "begging for attention", lol.


----------



## Darkwind

Taz said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like YOU have.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
Click to expand...

No, we haven't.  America, or any civilized society, ever punish the innocent for the crimes of a few guilty people.


----------



## airplanemechanic

52ndStreet said:


> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.





miketx said:


> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the OP is begging for attention or something. Why didn't they just reply to another thread about this? There is no substance in the OP of the thread. It's just an opinion. No link, no nothing.
> 
> 
> 
> Well, are opinion threads banned here? Seriously, I don't know if they are but why would they be? As far as "begging for attention", lol.
Click to expand...


This isn't the opinion section, this is the current events. It's supposed to have a link and a substantial opinion. It clogs up the forum when people think they are mightier than everyone else and make a thread with no substance.

Imagine the mess if everyone started a thread on every little "opinion" they had. Why not make a thread about banning bump stocks? Then another about semi-auto rifles? Then another about sniper rifles? I mean it makes a mess of the forum. All those should be combined into one, that's why these moderators are always merging threads. 

Read the OP. Why couldn't that have been a reply to an existing thread about the shooting?


----------



## miketx

airplanemechanic said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> airplanemechanic said:
> 
> 
> 
> I feel the OP is begging for attention or something. Why didn't they just reply to another thread about this? There is no substance in the OP of the thread. It's just an opinion. No link, no nothing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, are opinion threads banned here? Seriously, I don't know if they are but why would they be? As far as "begging for attention", lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This isn't the opinion section, this is the current events. It's supposed to have a link and a substantial opinion. It clogs up the forum when people think they are mightier than everyone else and make a thread with no substance.
> 
> Imagine the mess if everyone started a thread on every little "opinion" they had. Why not make a thread about banning bump stocks? Then another about semi-auto rifles? Then another about sniper rifles? I mean it makes a mess of the forum. All those should be combined into one, that's why these moderators are always merging threads.
> 
> Read the OP. Why couldn't that have been a reply to an existing thread about the shooting?
Click to expand...

Clearly you are obsessed over this.


----------



## BlackSand

airplanemechanic said:


> This isn't the opinion section, this is the current events. It's supposed to have a link and a substantial opinion. It clogs up the forum when people think they are mightier than everyone else and make a thread with no substance.
> 
> Imagine the mess if everyone started a thread on every little "opinion" they had. Why not make a thread about banning bump stocks? Then another about semi-auto rifles? Then another about sniper rifles? I mean it makes a mess of the forum. All those should be combined into one, that's why these moderators are always merging threads.
> 
> Read the OP. Why couldn't that have been a reply to an existing thread about the shooting?



Whoa-Whoa-Whoa ... How the hell did sniper rifles suddenly get thrown into the mix ... 

.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

52ndStreet said:


> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.


Ignorant nonsense.

The proposed legislation is perfectly Constitutional, in no manner ‘infringing’ on the Second Amendment, until such time as the Supreme Court rule otherwise.


----------



## frigidweirdo

52ndStreet said:


> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.



But it's okay to infringe on the rights of gay people and black people though


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

frigidweirdo said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's okay to infringe on the rights of gay people and black people though
Click to expand...

In addition to the rights of women and immigrants.

Such is the hypocritical authoritarian right: they bemoan government overreach with regard to firearm regulatory measures but advocate for more government and bigger government interfering in citizens’ private lives.

And unlike the proposed legislation in response to the Las Vegas shooting, laws supported by conservatives that violate the privacy rights of women, the equal protection rights of gay Americans, and the voting rights of minorities are in fact un-Constitutional.


----------



## Dale Smith

frigidweirdo said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's okay to infringe on the rights of gay people and black people though
Click to expand...



Queers can be queer and suck as much dick as they want.........black people and white people, yellow people and brown people are being oppressed under the UCC...........capiche'???


----------



## Taz

Leo123 said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
> 
> 
> 
> The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.
> 
> This problem is going to have to addressed another way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... in YOUR future only the the government will be allowed to have guns....good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need a gun. Never have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Hey, if you don't need a gun don't get one just don't try to tell me I don't need one.
Click to expand...

It's a false narrative spread by the gun lobby who want to keep you scared and buying guns to say that anyone wants to take away ALL the guns.


----------



## Taz

2aguy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> See what I'm saying? You're not even going to attempt to try anything because your brain is stuck on your false mantra.
> 
> 
> 
> False mantra?
> 
> What do you intend to do?
> 
> I can attempt to do many things.
> 
> Imprison these people for life. Total seclusion. No amenities.
> 
> Hard labor.
> 
> Firing squad.
> 
> An example will be set for those who think murder is acceptable.
> 
> Other countries have disarmed their citizens. And this hasn't worked.
> 
> Our mass murderers seem to have one thing in common.
> 
> Prescription medication.
> 
> Mass murder is a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Again. Besides disarming the entire nation what would you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.
> 
> This problem is going to have to addressed another way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes.....everyone thought Germany was civilized too.....especially the people who were marching into the gas chambers as they tried to reassure themselves that one day, their nightmare would be over.....
Click to expand...

Godwin's law - Wikipedia


----------



## Taz

2aguy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? You accept mass shootings on a regular basis?
> 
> 
> 
> Where has anyone accepted it?
> 
> I want people who do it to be executed.
> 
> you need to understand that last part  PEOPLE WHO COMMIT MASS MURDER not people who don't
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And explain how you intend to stop them?
> 
> By disarming everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By copying laws in countries that have the least of regular mass shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Britain....where they did everything you want, they banned and confisated guns...and the only reason they don't have more mass public shootings is dumb luck, bad shooting and their nuts just don't do them as often.....?
> 
> And where after they banned guns......their gun crime rates skyrocketed and keep going up...you mean like that?
> 
> Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online
> 
> The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year  -  a rise of 89 per cent.
> 
> The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ========
> 
> 
> 
> Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show
> 
> Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.
> 
> =========
> 
> 
> 
> Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News
> 
> Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.
> 
> Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime
> 
> A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years.
> 
> ----
> 
> He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger.
> 
> -----
> 
> Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.
> 
> Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma.
> 
> -----
> 
> *Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012. *
> 
> *He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns. *
> 
> Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that *handguns *and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.
> 
> He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”
Click to expand...

Can you link these stats to anything in particular that we are talking about? Or are you just letting off steam because :


----------



## Taz

2aguy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?
> 
> 
> 
> I can demand something be done.
> 
> None of my firearms have been used in mass shootings.
> 
> What do you intend to do, besides disarming everyone?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> See what I'm saying? You're not even going to attempt to try anything because your brain is stuck on your false mantra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False mantra?
> 
> What do you intend to do?
> 
> I can attempt to do many things.
> 
> Imprison these people for life. Total seclusion. No amenities.
> 
> Hard labor.
> 
> Firing squad.
> 
> An example will be set for those who think murder is acceptable.
> 
> Other countries have disarmed their citizens. And this hasn't worked.
> 
> Our mass murderers seem to have one thing in common.
> 
> Prescription medication.
> 
> Mass murder is a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Again. Besides disarming the entire nation what would you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that their gun control laws have nothing to do with their low gun crime rate...right?  Their culture, not their gun control laws, keep all of their crime rates low......you might want to do some research on the topic....you are fooled the same way many other gun grabbers are by the Japanese gun control myth...
> 
> Japan: Gun Control and People Control
> 
> 
> 
> *Do the gun banners have the argument won when they point to these statistics? *
> 
> *No, they don't.*
> 
> A realistic examination of Japanese culture leads to the conclusion that gun control has little, if anything, to do with Japan's low crime rates. Japan's lack of crime is more the result of the very extensive powers of the Japanese police, and the distinctive relation of the Japanese citizenry to authority. Further, none of the reasons which have made gun control succeed in Japan (in terms of disarming citizens) exist in the U.S.
> 
> The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.
> 
> Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.
> 
> Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.
> 
> Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.
> 
> For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors' judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%.
> Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.
> 
> In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.
> 
> The police routinely ask "suspicious" characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police -- even if the police acted illegally.
> 
> The most important element of police power, though, is not authority to search, but authority in the community. Like school teachers, Japanese policemen rate high in public esteem, especially in the countryside. Community leaders and role models, the police are trained in calligraphy and Haiku composition. In police per capita, Japan far outranks all other major democracies.
> 
> 15,000 koban "police boxes" are located throughout the cities. Citizens go to the 24-hour-a-day boxes not only for street directions, but to complain about day-to-day problems, such as noisy neighbors, or to ask advice on how to raise children. Some of the policemen and their families live in the boxes. Police box officers clear 74.6% of all criminal cases cleared. Police box officers also spend time teaching neighborhood youth judo or calligraphy. The officers even hand- write their own newspapers, with information about crime and accidents, "stories about good deeds by children, and opinions of
> residents."
Click to expand...

You're close to the ignore button, you should try to calm down. Nobody reads your copy&paste obsession. Make a point, then add a link to a credible source, if I need more info to check out what you say, I'll do it.


----------



## Taz

2aguy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like YOU have.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No it hasn't. People have always murdered. Look at other countries it's the same or worse. People have a right to defend themselves regardless of of what criminals do and no laws will stop criminals, anyone  who thinks so is a fool or has an agenda.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I say that because in a normal, civilized society, the people would demand that something be done, and then do it. Lots of countries don't have regular mass shootings. If they can do it, so can we?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> That would take changing our culture to theirs....and sadly, they are changing their culture to 3rd world cultures of violence......so they won't be murder free very long...
Click to expand...

I hope that you at least realize that you're part of the problem.


----------



## Taz

AvgGuyIA said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> 
> 
> Commendable.
> 
> We're not giving up our guns!
Click to expand...

It's a false narrative to say that anyone wants you to give up ALL your guns.


----------



## Taz

Darkwind said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like YOU have.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, we haven't.  America, or any civilized society, ever punish the innocent for the crimes of a few guilty people.
Click to expand...

There's the mass shootings, all the hating on blacks, Mexicans, gays... All the wars... We've lost our way for sure. You just don't even know it, because someone waved the 2nd Amendment and you went into a perpetual frenzy.


----------



## Bruce_T_Laney

Meathead said:


> It's not going to happen anyway. I think certain sensible restrictions should be enacted, but the 2nd Amendment is safe.



Murder is already against the law, so how many more restrictions do you need to tell the criminal not to use a gun in their murder sprees?


----------



## danielpalos

I believe we merely need to insist, our legislators do their _Job_.

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## 52ndStreet

The ultimate goal of the liberal left is to confiscate all  guns and rifles of American citizens and other nations on the Earth. Some New World Order liberal left agenda.Do the research!!. This is a fact.


----------



## OnePercenter

Leo123 said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not going to happen anyway. I think certain sensible restrictions should be enacted, but the 2nd Amendment is safe.
> 
> 
> 
> we already have plenty of sensible restrictions and quite a few that aren't so sensible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can buy an AK-47 easier than allergy medicine. How is that sensible?
> 
> IMO as a gun owner; there is no need for any civilian to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
> 
> Here are all the victims of the Las Vegas shooting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove your claim. I don't need a reason to own a gun, I have a right. And SCUM like you will Not TAKE IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't write that you didn't have a right. My opinion in no way infringes your rights under the second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment promotes a standing CIVILIAN army.  (militia)  Why shouldn't civilians have access to the VERY SAME weapons?
Click to expand...


The 2nd amendment promotes an organized militia. Cletus and his buddies in a pickup truck ARE NOT an organized militia.


----------



## OnePercenter

2aguy said:


> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not going to happen anyway. I think certain sensible restrictions should be enacted, but the 2nd Amendment is safe.
> 
> 
> 
> we already have plenty of sensible restrictions and quite a few that aren't so sensible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can buy an AK-47 easier than allergy medicine. How is that sensible?
> 
> IMO as a gun owner; there is no need for any civilian to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
> 
> Here are all the victims of the Las Vegas shooting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey...moron....you can't buy allergy medicine easier than an AK.....are you really that fucking stupid?  Or are you just trolling the thread?
> 
> Self Defense is the reason civilians need semi auto weapons...and notice to all 2nd Amendment supporters how this idiot chose his/her words.....
> 
> They said "Semi-automatic weapons" which means pistols as well as rifles.......that isn't a slip...that is what they want....all guns....
Click to expand...


I wrote, "You *can *buy an AK-47 easier than allergy medicine. How is that sensible?"


----------



## OnePercenter

52ndStreet said:


> The ultimate goal of the liberal left is to confiscate all  guns and rifles of American citizens and other nations on the Earth. Some New World Order liberal left agenda.Do the research!!. This is a fact.



No it's not.


----------



## Leo123

OnePercenter said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> we already have plenty of sensible restrictions and quite a few that aren't so sensible
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can buy an AK-47 easier than allergy medicine. How is that sensible?
> 
> IMO as a gun owner; there is no need for any civilian to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
> 
> Here are all the victims of the Las Vegas shooting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Prove your claim. I don't need a reason to own a gun, I have a right. And SCUM like you will Not TAKE IT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I didn't write that you didn't have a right. My opinion in no way infringes your rights under the second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment promotes a standing CIVILIAN army.  (militia)  Why shouldn't civilians have access to the VERY SAME weapons?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The 2nd amendment promotes an organized militia. Cletus and his buddies in a pickup truck ARE NOT an organized militia.
Click to expand...


Well when Clintus shows up at your door to take you to jail you'll be happy to see Cletus and his buddies coming to protect you.


----------



## 2aguy

OnePercenter said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> OnePercenter said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not going to happen anyway. I think certain sensible restrictions should be enacted, but the 2nd Amendment is safe.
> 
> 
> 
> we already have plenty of sensible restrictions and quite a few that aren't so sensible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can buy an AK-47 easier than allergy medicine. How is that sensible?
> 
> IMO as a gun owner; there is no need for any civilian to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
> 
> Here are all the victims of the Las Vegas shooting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Hey...moron....you can't buy allergy medicine easier than an AK.....are you really that fucking stupid?  Or are you just trolling the thread?
> 
> Self Defense is the reason civilians need semi auto weapons...and notice to all 2nd Amendment supporters how this idiot chose his/her words.....
> 
> They said "Semi-automatic weapons" which means pistols as well as rifles.......that isn't a slip...that is what they want....all guns....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I wrote, "You *can *buy an AK-47 easier than allergy medicine. How is that sensible?"
Click to expand...



You can't......if you are a felon, you can't buy, own or carry one....you can buy all the allergy medicine you want.  You have to go through a background check when you buy a civilian model of the AK at a gun store...you don't even need I.D. to by allergy medicine......you have to fill out paperwork to buy any gun......none for allergy medicine...


----------



## 2aguy

frigidweirdo said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> But it's okay to infringe on the rights of gay people and black people though
Click to expand...



Republicans freed black people from the democrats  in the 1860s ...but it did take longer to force democrats to stop murdering blacks and denying them their civil rights......What Rights do gay people not have?


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Where has anyone accepted it?
> 
> I want people who do it to be executed.
> 
> you need to understand that last part  PEOPLE WHO COMMIT MASS MURDER not people who don't
> 
> 
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And explain how you intend to stop them?
> 
> By disarming everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By copying laws in countries that have the least of regular mass shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Britain....where they did everything you want, they banned and confisated guns...and the only reason they don't have more mass public shootings is dumb luck, bad shooting and their nuts just don't do them as often.....?
> 
> And where after they banned guns......their gun crime rates skyrocketed and keep going up...you mean like that?
> 
> Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online
> 
> The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year  -  a rise of 89 per cent.
> 
> The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ========
> 
> 
> 
> Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show
> 
> Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.
> 
> =========
> 
> 
> 
> Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News
> 
> Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.
> 
> Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime
> 
> A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years.
> 
> ----
> 
> He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger.
> 
> -----
> 
> Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.
> 
> Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma.
> 
> -----
> 
> *Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012. *
> 
> *He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns. *
> 
> Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that *handguns *and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.
> 
> He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you link these stats to anything in particular that we are talking about? Or are you just letting off steam because :
> View attachment 154073
Click to expand...



Yes...homicides are not just murder...but thanks for posting that crap....

Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack.....and to save lives, and once in a great while they even stop mass public shootings......

And now the whole truth....

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600  million guns in private hands and over 16.3  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%
--gun crime down 75%
--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> I can demand something be done.
> 
> None of my firearms have been used in mass shootings.
> 
> What do you intend to do, besides disarming everyone?
> 
> 
> 
> See what I'm saying? You're not even going to attempt to try anything because your brain is stuck on your false mantra.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> False mantra?
> 
> What do you intend to do?
> 
> I can attempt to do many things.
> 
> Imprison these people for life. Total seclusion. No amenities.
> 
> Hard labor.
> 
> Firing squad.
> 
> An example will be set for those who think murder is acceptable.
> 
> Other countries have disarmed their citizens. And this hasn't worked.
> 
> Our mass murderers seem to have one thing in common.
> 
> Prescription medication.
> 
> Mass murder is a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Again. Besides disarming the entire nation what would you do?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You do realize that their gun control laws have nothing to do with their low gun crime rate...right?  Their culture, not their gun control laws, keep all of their crime rates low......you might want to do some research on the topic....you are fooled the same way many other gun grabbers are by the Japanese gun control myth...
> 
> Japan: Gun Control and People Control
> 
> 
> 
> *Do the gun banners have the argument won when they point to these statistics? *
> 
> *No, they don't.*
> 
> A realistic examination of Japanese culture leads to the conclusion that gun control has little, if anything, to do with Japan's low crime rates. Japan's lack of crime is more the result of the very extensive powers of the Japanese police, and the distinctive relation of the Japanese citizenry to authority. Further, none of the reasons which have made gun control succeed in Japan (in terms of disarming citizens) exist in the U.S.
> 
> The Japanese criminal justice system bears more heavily on a suspect than any other system in an industrial democratic nation. One American found this out when he was arrested in Okinawa for possessing marijuana: he was interrogated for days without an attorney, and signed a confession written in Japanese that he could not read. He met his lawyer for the first time at his trial, which took 30 minutes.
> 
> Unlike in the United States, where the Miranda rule limits coercive police interrogation techniques, Japanese police and prosecutors may detain a suspect indefinitely until he confesses. (Technically, detentions are only allowed for three days, followed by ten day extensions approved by a judge, but defense attorneys rarely oppose the extension request, for fear of offending the prosecutor.) Bail is denied if it would interfere with interrogation.
> 
> Even after interrogation is completed, pretrial detention may continue on a variety of pretexts, such as preventing the defendant from destroying evidence. Criminal defense lawyers are the only people allowed to visit a detained suspect, and those meetings are strictly limited.
> 
> Partly as a result of these coercive practices, and partly as a result of the Japanese sense of shame, the confession rate is 95%.
> 
> For those few defendants who dare to go to trial, there is no jury. Since judges almost always defer to the prosecutors' judgment, the trial conviction rate for violent crime is 99.5%.
> Of those convicted, 98% receive jail time.
> 
> In short, once a Japanese suspect is apprehended, the power of the prosecutor makes it very likely the suspect will go to jail. And the power of the policeman makes it quite likely that a criminal will be apprehended.
> 
> The police routinely ask "suspicious" characters to show what is in their purse or sack. In effect, the police can search almost anyone, almost anytime, because courts only rarely exclude evidence seized by the police -- even if the police acted illegally.
> 
> The most important element of police power, though, is not authority to search, but authority in the community. Like school teachers, Japanese policemen rate high in public esteem, especially in the countryside. Community leaders and role models, the police are trained in calligraphy and Haiku composition. In police per capita, Japan far outranks all other major democracies.
> 
> 15,000 koban "police boxes" are located throughout the cities. Citizens go to the 24-hour-a-day boxes not only for street directions, but to complain about day-to-day problems, such as noisy neighbors, or to ask advice on how to raise children. Some of the policemen and their families live in the boxes. Police box officers clear 74.6% of all criminal cases cleared. Police box officers also spend time teaching neighborhood youth judo or calligraphy. The officers even hand- write their own newspapers, with information about crime and accidents, "stories about good deeds by children, and opinions of
> residents."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're close to the ignore button, you should try to calm down. Nobody reads your copy&paste obsession. Make a point, then add a link to a credible source, if I need more info to check out what you say, I'll do it.
Click to expand...



Oh...I get it......you get exposed by real information about Japan, Australia and Britain......and you have no response....


----------



## Taz

2aguy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> 
> 
> And explain how you intend to stop them?
> 
> By disarming everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By copying laws in countries that have the least of regular mass shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Britain....where they did everything you want, they banned and confisated guns...and the only reason they don't have more mass public shootings is dumb luck, bad shooting and their nuts just don't do them as often.....?
> 
> And where after they banned guns......their gun crime rates skyrocketed and keep going up...you mean like that?
> 
> Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online
> 
> The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year  -  a rise of 89 per cent.
> 
> The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ========
> 
> 
> 
> Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show
> 
> Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.
> 
> =========
> 
> 
> 
> Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News
> 
> Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.
> 
> Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime
> 
> A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years.
> 
> ----
> 
> He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger.
> 
> -----
> 
> Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.
> 
> Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma.
> 
> -----
> 
> *Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012. *
> 
> *He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns. *
> 
> Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that *handguns *and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.
> 
> He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you link these stats to anything in particular that we are talking about? Or are you just letting off steam because :
> View attachment 154073
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...homicides are not just murder...but thanks for posting that crap....
> 
> Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack.....and to save lives, and once in a great while they even stop mass public shootings......
> 
> And now the whole truth....
> 
> We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600  million guns in private hands and over 16.3  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
> -- gun murder down 49%
> --gun crime down 75%
> --violent crime down 72%
> 
> Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
> 
> Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
Click to expand...

Can you make a point without barfing up copy&paste all the time?


----------



## Rustic

Taz said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
Click to expand...

Political correctness has destroyed everything in this country


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Taz said:


> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> 
> 
> Commendable.
> 
> We're not giving up our guns!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a false narrative to say that anyone wants you to give up ALL your guns.
Click to expand...

It’s a lie to say anyone wants gun owners to ‘give up’ all their guns.

Of course, that’s what most conservatives are: liars.

And they contrive and propagate lies about firearm regulatory measures as they do most everything else.


----------



## danielpalos

52ndStreet said:


> The ultimate goal of the liberal left is to confiscate all  guns and rifles of American citizens and other nations on the Earth. Some New World Order liberal left agenda.Do the research!!. This is a fact.


I believe we merely need to insist, our legislators do their _Job_.


----------



## BlackSand

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> It’s a lie to say anyone wants gun owners to ‘give up’ all their guns.
> 
> Of course, that’s what most conservatives are: liars.
> 
> And they contrive and propagate lies about firearm regulatory measures as they do most everything else.



That's what they said last time ... And what they will say next time ... 

Of course they don't want to take all of your guns.
Well, not all at once anyway ... They'll just keep chipping away at your rights until your surrender is inevitable.

.


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> 
> 
> And explain how you intend to stop them?
> 
> By disarming everyone else?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> By copying laws in countries that have the least of regular mass shootings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You mean Britain....where they did everything you want, they banned and confisated guns...and the only reason they don't have more mass public shootings is dumb luck, bad shooting and their nuts just don't do them as often.....?
> 
> And where after they banned guns......their gun crime rates skyrocketed and keep going up...you mean like that?
> 
> Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online
> 
> The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year  -  a rise of 89 per cent.
> 
> The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ========
> 
> 
> 
> Crime rise is biggest in a decade, ONS figures show
> 
> Ministers will also be concerned that the country is becoming increasingly violent in nature, with gun crime rising 23% to 6,375 offences, largely driven by an increase in the use of handguns.
> 
> =========
> 
> 
> 
> Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News
> 
> Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.
> 
> Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime
> 
> A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years.
> 
> ----
> 
> He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger.
> 
> -----
> 
> Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.
> 
> Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma.
> 
> -----
> 
> *Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012. *
> 
> *He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns. *
> 
> Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that *handguns *and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.
> 
> He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Can you link these stats to anything in particular that we are talking about? Or are you just letting off steam because :
> View attachment 154073
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes...homicides are not just murder...but thanks for posting that crap....
> 
> Americans use guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop violent criminal attack.....and to save lives, and once in a great while they even stop mass public shootings......
> 
> And now the whole truth....
> 
> We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600  million guns in private hands and over 16.3  million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
> -- gun murder down 49%
> --gun crime down 75%
> --violent crime down 72%
> 
> Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware
> 
> Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.
Click to expand...

A fallacy of false Cause?  Health and safety codes have been, "improved or improving", since  Reagan got shot.

Your analogy holds for automobile deaths as well.  Health and safety in automobiles, are now, "more well established".


----------



## danielpalos

BlackSand said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a lie to say anyone wants gun owners to ‘give up’ all their guns.
> 
> Of course, that’s what most conservatives are: liars.
> 
> And they contrive and propagate lies about firearm regulatory measures as they do most everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what they said last time ... And what they will say next time ...
> 
> Of course they don't want to take all of your guns.
> Well, not all at once anyway ... They'll just keep chipping away at your rights until your surrender is inevitable.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Gun lovers are simply too lazy to muster.  Well regulated militia of the whole People, don't have that problem.


----------



## Geaux4it

Gun grabbers want to close the 'gun show loophole' which is essentially private-person to person sales. Yet, there has not been one example of a mass shooting where the weapon was obtained this way, thus even if it were 'closed' as they state, it would of had no impact on the LV shooting

-Geaux


----------



## BlackSand

danielpalos said:


> Gun lovers are simply too lazy to muster.  Well regulated militia of the whole People, don't have that problem.




Pfft ... As far as militias are concerned ... I am embracing the "The Army of One" theory ... And I get enough fiber to be well-regulated.

.


----------



## Geaux4it

Our forefathers had no issue with guns of war relative to the 2A. We hear today the AR-15 and M4 etc, need banned as they are guns of war and not what the fathers intended when they ensured our right to keep and bear arms

The weapons of the day owned by the 'farmers' were indeed weapons of war and far superior to those of the redcoats

-Geaux


----------



## Wry Catcher

52ndStreet said:


> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.



Bullshit ^^^!   The 2nd A. is ambiguous, if taken literally it allows for anyone to own any military weapon up to and including nuclear weapons.


----------



## danielpalos

BlackSand said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Gun lovers are simply too lazy to muster.  Well regulated militia of the whole People, don't have that problem.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Pfft ... As far as militias are concerned ... I am embracing the "The Army of One" theory ... And I get enough fiber to be well-regulated.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Just regular propaganda.  There is no such thing as a militia of one.


----------



## BlackSand

danielpalos said:


> Just regular propaganda.  There is no such thing as a militia of one.



You obviously haven't seen my compound ... Er-uh, house that is ... 

.


----------



## danielpalos

BlackSand said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Just regular propaganda.  There is no such thing as a militia of one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You obviously haven't seen my compound ... Er-uh, house that is ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.  The person is just an anarchist.


----------



## BlackSand

danielpalos said:


> The People are the Militia.  The person is just an anarchist.



My house is not an anarchy ... It's a totalitarian dictatorship ... Of course I don't support that as a national option.

.


----------



## danielpalos

BlackSand said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.  The person is just an anarchist.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> My house is not an anarchy ... It's a totalitarian dictatorship ... Of course I don't support that as a national option.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

see what I mean.  

The militia of the United States, has a Republic.


----------



## 2aguy

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> 
> 
> Commendable.
> 
> We're not giving up our guns!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a false narrative to say that anyone wants you to give up ALL your guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a lie to say anyone wants gun owners to ‘give up’ all their guns.
> 
> Of course, that’s what most conservatives are: liars.
> 
> And they contrive and propagate lies about firearm regulatory measures as they do most everything else.
Click to expand...



You are still a fool.  The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated.....


----------



## 2aguy

BlackSand said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a lie to say anyone wants gun owners to ‘give up’ all their guns.
> 
> Of course, that’s what most conservatives are: liars.
> 
> And they contrive and propagate lies about firearm regulatory measures as they do most everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what they said last time ... And what they will say next time ...
> 
> Of course they don't want to take all of your guns.
> Well, not all at once anyway ... They'll just keep chipping away at your rights until your surrender is inevitable.
> 
> .
Click to expand...



1st.....universal background checks.  That is the key...that gives them...

2nd....universal gun registration....the thing they really, really want....but they can't get registration without first getting universal background checks.  

After they get universal background checks, criminals will still get guns by using straw buyers and stealing guns.  Mass shooters will still get guns by simply passing any and all background checks.

Then....after the next big mass shooting after UBCs are passed, they will say....UBCs obviously can't work without universal gun registration......since we don't know who has the guns to make sure a background check was done to transfer them...

Then, once they get gun registration, they will simply wait till they have enough political power and then ban and confiscate whole categories of guns...or if their dreams come true, all guns in private hands....

This is the process that has already been used around the world in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, and here in New York and California....


----------



## Taz

2aguy said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> 
> 
> Commendable.
> 
> We're not giving up our guns!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a false narrative to say that anyone wants you to give up ALL your guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a lie to say anyone wants gun owners to ‘give up’ all their guns.
> 
> Of course, that’s what most conservatives are: liars.
> 
> And they contrive and propagate lies about firearm regulatory measures as they do most everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are still a fool.  The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated.....
Click to expand...

  or


----------



## Taz

2aguy said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a lie to say anyone wants gun owners to ‘give up’ all their guns.
> 
> Of course, that’s what most conservatives are: liars.
> 
> And they contrive and propagate lies about firearm regulatory measures as they do most everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what they said last time ... And what they will say next time ...
> 
> Of course they don't want to take all of your guns.
> Well, not all at once anyway ... They'll just keep chipping away at your rights until your surrender is inevitable.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1st.....universal background checks.  That is the key...that gives them...
> 
> 2nd....universal gun registration....the thing they really, really want....but they can't get registration without first getting universal background checks.
> 
> After they get universal background checks, criminals will still get guns by using straw buyers and stealing guns.  Mass shooters will still get guns by simply passing any and all background checks.
> 
> Then....after the next big mass shooting after UBCs are passed, they will say....UBCs obviously can't work without universal gun registration......since we don't know who has the guns to make sure a background check was done to transfer them...
> 
> Then, once they get gun registration, they will simply wait till they have enough political power and then ban and confiscate whole categories of guns...or if their dreams come true, all guns in private hands....
> 
> This is the process that has already been used around the world in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, and here in New York and California....
Click to expand...

 or


----------



## danielpalos

2aguy said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a lie to say anyone wants gun owners to ‘give up’ all their guns.
> 
> Of course, that’s what most conservatives are: liars.
> 
> And they contrive and propagate lies about firearm regulatory measures as they do most everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That's what they said last time ... And what they will say next time ...
> 
> Of course they don't want to take all of your guns.
> Well, not all at once anyway ... They'll just keep chipping away at your rights until your surrender is inevitable.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 1st.....universal background checks.  That is the key...that gives them...
> 
> 2nd....universal gun registration....the thing they really, really want....but they can't get registration without first getting universal background checks.
> 
> After they get universal background checks, criminals will still get guns by using straw buyers and stealing guns.  Mass shooters will still get guns by simply passing any and all background checks.
> 
> Then....after the next big mass shooting after UBCs are passed, they will say....UBCs obviously can't work without universal gun registration......since we don't know who has the guns to make sure a background check was done to transfer them...
> 
> Then, once they get gun registration, they will simply wait till they have enough political power and then ban and confiscate whole categories of guns...or if their dreams come true, all guns in private hands....
> 
> This is the process that has already been used around the world in Germany, Britain, Australia, Canada, and here in New York and California....
Click to expand...

Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia.


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept regular mass shootings. But we have, and in the process, have lost our way as a civilized society.
> 
> 
> 
> Commendable.
> 
> We're not giving up our guns!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It's a false narrative to say that anyone wants you to give up ALL your guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a lie to say anyone wants gun owners to ‘give up’ all their guns.
> 
> Of course, that’s what most conservatives are: liars.
> 
> And they contrive and propagate lies about firearm regulatory measures as they do most everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are still a fool.  The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> or
Click to expand...



Moron...

Pelosi: Hell Yes, I Hope There's a 'Slippery Slope' Toward More Gun Control


Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’


----------



## danielpalos

We have a Second Amendment; there is no real reason for gun control laws.

We simply have, too many unorganized militia, that is all.


----------



## Taz

2aguy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> AvgGuyIA said:
> 
> 
> 
> Commendable.
> 
> We're not giving up our guns!
> 
> 
> 
> It's a false narrative to say that anyone wants you to give up ALL your guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It’s a lie to say anyone wants gun owners to ‘give up’ all their guns.
> 
> Of course, that’s what most conservatives are: liars.
> 
> And they contrive and propagate lies about firearm regulatory measures as they do most everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are still a fool.  The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> or
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron...
> 
> Pelosi: Hell Yes, I Hope There's a 'Slippery Slope' Toward More Gun Control
> 
> 
> Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’
Click to expand...

That link doesn't mention "The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated". So you have nothing. Got it.


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's a false narrative to say that anyone wants you to give up ALL your guns.
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a lie to say anyone wants gun owners to ‘give up’ all their guns.
> 
> Of course, that’s what most conservatives are: liars.
> 
> And they contrive and propagate lies about firearm regulatory measures as they do most everything else.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You are still a fool.  The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> or
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron...
> 
> Pelosi: Hell Yes, I Hope There's a 'Slippery Slope' Toward More Gun Control
> 
> 
> Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link doesn't mention "The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated". So you have nothing. Got it.
Click to expand...



Wow....you really shouldn't start drinking and using drugs so early in the day......


----------



## Taz

2aguy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> It’s a lie to say anyone wants gun owners to ‘give up’ all their guns.
> 
> Of course, that’s what most conservatives are: liars.
> 
> And they contrive and propagate lies about firearm regulatory measures as they do most everything else.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are still a fool.  The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> or
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Moron...
> 
> Pelosi: Hell Yes, I Hope There's a 'Slippery Slope' Toward More Gun Control
> 
> 
> Hillary: Australia-style gun control ‘worth looking at’
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That link doesn't mention "The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated". So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Wow....you really shouldn't start drinking and using drugs so early in the day......
Click to expand...

Australia didn't ban all guns. You fail. Epically.


----------



## JimBowie1958




----------



## BlackSand

Taz said:


> That link doesn't mention "The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated". So you have nothing. Got it.



Of course the Democrat party doesn't want all your guns ... Yet anyways ... 
They just want to ban the ones that will keep you from putting up a good fight when they come for the rest.

.


----------



## Taz

BlackSand said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That link doesn't mention "The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated". So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Democrat party doesn't want all your guns ... Yet anyways ...
> They just want to ban the ones that will keep you from putting up a good fight when they come for the rest.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Whatever drugs you're on that are distorting your reality.... Can I have some?


----------



## Rustic

Taz said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That link doesn't mention "The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated". So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Democrat party doesn't want all your guns ... Yet anyways ...
> They just want to ban the ones that will keep you from putting up a good fight when they come for the rest.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Whatever drugs you're on that are distorting your reality.... Can I have some?
Click to expand...


----------



## BlackSand

Taz said:


> Whatever drugs you're on that are distorting your reality.... Can I have some?



I am high on life and all the wonderful things it offers.
Not to mention you seem to have had your share of drugs already ... Keep on peddling that crap, some schmuck will probably buy it ... 

.


----------



## 52ndStreet

danielpalos said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ultimate goal of the liberal left is to confiscate all  guns and rifles of American citizens and other nations on the Earth. Some New World Order liberal left agenda.Do the research!!. This is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe we merely need to insist, our legislators do their _Job_.
Click to expand...


Like I said , the ultimate goal is to confiscate all small arms from all American citizens, and to delete United States  2nd  second amendment. This proposal was introduced at the United  Nations by then secretary of ambassador of the U.S. Hillary Clinton. And some of the other New World order fiends accepted the draft resolution. This is a fact, do the research.!!


----------



## Rustic

52ndStreet said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ultimate goal of the liberal left is to confiscate all  guns and rifles of American citizens and other nations on the Earth. Some New World Order liberal left agenda.Do the research!!. This is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe we merely need to insist, our legislators do their _Job_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said , the ultimate goal is to confiscate all small arms from all American citizens, and to delete United States  2nd  second amendment. This proposal was introduced at the United  Nations by then secretary of ambassador of the U.S. Hillary Clinton. And some of the other New World order fiends accepted the draft resolution. This is a fact, do the research.!!
Click to expand...

The only thing worse than nationalism is globalism, the collective needs to force their way. Because their true intentions be known anyone would realize it’s not for them.


----------



## Taz

BlackSand said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever drugs you're on that are distorting your reality.... Can I have some?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am high on life and all the wonderful things it offers.
> Not to mention you seem to have had your share of drugs already ... Keep on peddling that crap, some schmuck will probably buy it ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Then you must have paranoid delusions if you think that anyone wants to take away ALL the guns. You can't even name one person who does.


----------



## Rustic

Taz said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever drugs you're on that are distorting your reality.... Can I have some?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am high on life and all the wonderful things it offers.
> Not to mention you seem to have had your share of drugs already ... Keep on peddling that crap, some schmuck will probably buy it ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you must have paranoid delusions if you think that anyone wants to take away ALL the guns. You can't even name one person who does.
Click to expand...

Firearm ownership is a personal thing it’s no one else’s business. Frivolous gun laws are for the feeble


----------



## Taz

Rustic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever drugs you're on that are distorting your reality.... Can I have some?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am high on life and all the wonderful things it offers.
> Not to mention you seem to have had your share of drugs already ... Keep on peddling that crap, some schmuck will probably buy it ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you must have paranoid delusions if you think that anyone wants to take away ALL the guns. You can't even name one person who does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firearm ownership is a personal thing it’s no one else’s business. Frivolous gun laws are for the feeble
Click to expand...

Frivolous guns are for the feeble? You got THAT right, brah.


----------



## BlackSand

Taz said:


> Then you must have paranoid delusions if you think that anyone wants to take away ALL the guns. You can't even name one person who does.



Matt Damon does ... And has said so several times you ignorant twat ... 
Not that I really care what Matt Damon thinks ... But I did name one person right off the bat ... Which makes you wrong without much effort.

I am not delusional ... Just following the natural progression of things.
When the Constitution was ratified ... It was legal for an US citizen to own a fast sailing ship with up to 8 cannons.
Those cannons weren't for hunting or sport you nit-wit.

Over the years ... Our rights have been diminished ... And those on the left always come back to take away more.
Your ignorance doesn't amount to me having delusions ... But you are free to remain ignorant ... I am not counting on you for anything.


Edit:
The "paranoid" part was a cute little addition to your comments.
What makes you think I am paranoid anyone will want to confiscate my weapons?

I was in the military for 7 years ... Know how to use my firearms ... And I am not worried about any snowflake showing up to take them ... 

.


----------



## 52ndStreet

BlackSand said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That link doesn't mention "The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated". So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Democrat party doesn't want all your guns ... Yet anyways ...
> They just want to ban the ones that will keep you from putting up a good fight when they come for the rest.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


This is exactly my point. If you don't have a fully automatic assault rifles, there is no way you can engage any confiscating all your weapons military force,domestic or foreign.The draft was co authored by a democrat Hilary Clinton when she worked at the United Nations.!!This is fact,do the research.!!


----------



## Rustic

Taz said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever drugs you're on that are distorting your reality.... Can I have some?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am high on life and all the wonderful things it offers.
> Not to mention you seem to have had your share of drugs already ... Keep on peddling that crap, some schmuck will probably buy it ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you must have paranoid delusions if you think that anyone wants to take away ALL the guns. You can't even name one person who does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firearm ownership is a personal thing it’s no one else’s business. Frivolous gun laws are for the feeble
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frivolous guns are for the feeble? You got THAT right, brah.
Click to expand...

Says the person that is scared to death of them… LOL firearms are harmless on their own


----------



## Rustic

52ndStreet said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That link doesn't mention "The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated". So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Democrat party doesn't want all your guns ... Yet anyways ...
> They just want to ban the ones that will keep you from putting up a good fight when they come for the rest.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly my point. If you don't have a fully automatic assault rifles, there is no way you can engage any confiscating all your weapons military force,domestic or foreign.The draft was co authored by a democrat Hilary Clinton when she worked at the United Nations.!!This is fact,do the research.!!
Click to expand...

And the military would never go against their own country for the sake of the federal government, The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment


----------



## 52ndStreet

Rustic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever drugs you're on that are distorting your reality.... Can I have some?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am high on life and all the wonderful things it offers.
> Not to mention you seem to have had your share of drugs already ... Keep on peddling that crap, some schmuck will probably buy it ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you must have paranoid delusions if you think that anyone wants to take away ALL the guns. You can't even name one person who does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firearm ownership is a personal thing it’s no one else’s business. Frivolous gun laws are for the feeble
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frivolous guns are for the feeble? You got THAT right, brah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the person that is scared to death of them… LOL firearms are harmless on their own
Click to expand...


The Swiss are a nation were everyone is armed. They were never invaded by anyone during world war I or World War II.


----------



## Rambunctious

Anyone that believes gun confiscation will work in America is an idiot....Put morality back into public education or sit back and watch this get worse and worse...


----------



## 52ndStreet

Lets make America great again,lets authorize the sale of fully automatic assault rifles and sub machine guns for everyone over the age of 21.And there will never be anymore mass shooters, as everyone in America will be fully armed to the teeth.!!?


----------



## Skull Pilot

OnePercenter said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not going to happen anyway. I think certain sensible restrictions should be enacted, but the 2nd Amendment is safe.
> 
> 
> 
> we already have plenty of sensible restrictions and quite a few that aren't so sensible
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can buy an AK-47 easier than allergy medicine. How is that sensible?
> 
> IMO as a gun owner; there is no need for any civilian to own an automatic or semi-automatic weapon.
> 
> Here are all the victims of the Las Vegas shooting
Click to expand...


No you can't.

And you can't just buy an AK 47 since that is a fully automatic weapon what you can  buy is a semiautomatic rifle that LOOKS LIKE an AK 47


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> False mantra?
> 
> What do you intend to do?
> 
> I can attempt to do many things.
> 
> Imprison these people for life. Total seclusion. No amenities.
> 
> Hard labor.
> 
> Firing squad.
> 
> An example will be set for those who think murder is acceptable.
> 
> Other countries have disarmed their citizens. And this hasn't worked.
> 
> Our mass murderers seem to have one thing in common.
> 
> Prescription medication.
> 
> Mass murder is a recent phenomenon.
> 
> Again. Besides disarming the entire nation what would you do?
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.
> 
> This problem is going to have to addressed another way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... in YOUR future only the the government will be allowed to have guns....good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need a gun. Never have.
Click to expand...


I haven't needed one either but when I do I'll have one.  When you do you'll be a victim or dead.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
> 
> 
> 
> The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.
> 
> This problem is going to have to addressed another way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... in YOUR future only the the government will be allowed to have guns....good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need a gun. Never have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't needed one either but when I do I'll have one.  When you do you'll be a victim or dead.
Click to expand...



i dont need one yet i have one


----------



## jon_berzerk

jon_berzerk said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.
> 
> This problem is going to have to addressed another way.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... in YOUR future only the the government will be allowed to have guns....good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need a gun. Never have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't needed one either but when I do I'll have one.  When you do you'll be a victim or dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> i dont need one yet i have one
Click to expand...



part two exactly


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

52ndStreet said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am high on life and all the wonderful things it offers.
> Not to mention you seem to have had your share of drugs already ... Keep on peddling that crap, some schmuck will probably buy it ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Then you must have paranoid delusions if you think that anyone wants to take away ALL the guns. You can't even name one person who does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firearm ownership is a personal thing it’s no one else’s business. Frivolous gun laws are for the feeble
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frivolous guns are for the feeble? You got THAT right, brah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the person that is scared to death of them… LOL firearms are harmless on their own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Swiss are a nation were everyone is armed. They were never invaded by anyone during world war I or World War II.
Click to expand...

This fails as a false comparison fallacy. 

The Constitution and its case law protect our rights and liberties from government overreach and excess, not guns.

When government oversteps its Constitutional authority, the people are at liberty to seek relief at the ballot box or in Federal court, not with ‘force of arms,’ as guaranteed by the First Amendment, and the fundamental right of the people to vote via the democratic process, a First Amendment right neither mitigated nor abridged by the Second Amendment.

The Second Amendment protects the right to self-defense, to protect oneself from criminal attack, and to possess a firearm as a means to self-defense.

None of this has anything to do with Hitler or the Swiss, and to compare the United States to other countries with regard to guns is as idiotic as it is wrong.


----------



## MaryL

52ndStreet said:


> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.


Why? Just because of what happened in Las Vegas? NOW, that's a pretty big "BECAUSE".Things like that  happen because OF the 2nd Amendment, not in spite off it.  All these mass shootings speak for themselves. The 2nd amendment has become a more than an anachronism, its become an deficit and a threat more  than an benefit.  Let's repeal it. Stick a fork in it, it's done.


----------



## jon_berzerk

MaryL said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Just because of what happened in Las Vegas? NOW, that's a pretty big "BECAUSE".Things like that  happen because OF the 2nd Amendment, not in spite off it.  All these mass shootings speak for themselves. The 2nd amendment has become a more than an anachronism, its become an deficit and a threat more  than an benefit.  Let's repeal it. Stick a fork in it, it's done.
Click to expand...


bullshit


----------



## MaryL

jon_berzerk said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Just because of what happened in Las Vegas? NOW, that's a pretty big "BECAUSE".Things like that  happen because OF the 2nd Amendment, not in spite off it.  All these mass shootings speak for themselves. The 2nd amendment has become a more than an anachronism, its become an deficit and a threat more  than an benefit.  Let's repeal it. Stick a fork in it, it's done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bullshit
Click to expand...


----------



## MaryL

MaryL said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Just because of what happened in Las Vegas? NOW, that's a pretty big "BECAUSE".Things like that  happen because OF the 2nd Amendment, not in spite off it.  All these mass shootings speak for themselves. The 2nd amendment has become a more than an anachronism, its become an deficit and a threat more  than an benefit.  Let's repeal it. Stick a fork in it, it's done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...

How so?


----------



## jon_berzerk

MaryL said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Just because of what happened in Las Vegas? NOW, that's a pretty big "BECAUSE".Things like that  happen because OF the 2nd Amendment, not in spite off it.  All these mass shootings speak for themselves. The 2nd amendment has become a more than an anachronism, its become an deficit and a threat more  than an benefit.  Let's repeal it. Stick a fork in it, it's done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
Click to expand...



gun crimes happen all across the globe regardless of a "2nd amendment" 

even without the 2nd Amendment the right still exists 

the 2nd Amendment is nothing more the a statement to such a natural right existing 

however go ahead try and get a "repeal" good luck getting 3/4th of the states to ratify it


----------



## MaryL

jon_berzerk said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Just because of what happened in Las Vegas? NOW, that's a pretty big "BECAUSE".Things like that  happen because OF the 2nd Amendment, not in spite off it.  All these mass shootings speak for themselves. The 2nd amendment has become a more than an anachronism, its become an deficit and a threat more  than an benefit.  Let's repeal it. Stick a fork in it, it's done.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> gun crimes happen all across the globe regardless of a "2nd amendment"
> 
> even without the 2nd Amendment the right still exists
> 
> the 2nd Amendment is nothing more the a statement to such a natural right existing
> 
> however go ahead try and get a "repeal" good luck getting 3/4th of the states to ratify it
Click to expand...

Thanks.  You say-"Even without the 2nd amendment, there is a right"...that bears a little explanation.


----------



## jon_berzerk

MaryL said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Just because of what happened in Las Vegas? NOW, that's a pretty big "BECAUSE".Things like that  happen because OF the 2nd Amendment, not in spite off it.  All these mass shootings speak for themselves. The 2nd amendment has become a more than an anachronism, its become an deficit and a threat more  than an benefit.  Let's repeal it. Stick a fork in it, it's done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> gun crimes happen all across the globe regardless of a "2nd amendment"
> 
> even without the 2nd Amendment the right still exists
> 
> the 2nd Amendment is nothing more the a statement to such a natural right existing
> 
> however go ahead try and get a "repeal" good luck getting 3/4th of the states to ratify it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks.  You say-"Even without the 2nd amendment, there is a right"...that bears a little explanation.
Click to expand...



go read the the writings and  works of founding fathers 

if you dont understand that our rights are not given to those that run the government 

i will even help you out lazy bones 

Thomas Jefferson  - Online Library of Liberty


----------



## jon_berzerk

this is simple shit you should have known for years


----------



## BlackSand

MaryL said:


> Why? Just because of what happened in Las Vegas? NOW, that's a pretty big "BECAUSE".Things like that  happen because OF the 2nd Amendment, not in spite off it.  All these mass shootings speak for themselves. The 2nd amendment has become a more than an anachronism, its become an deficit and a threat more  than an benefit.  Let's repeal it. Stick a fork in it, it's done.



To repeal a Constitutional Amendment takes a vote by the people and approval/ratification by the States.
Perhaps you haven't looked at a political map in a while ... That isn't happening any time soon.

.


----------



## MaryL

jon_berzerk said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> gun crimes happen all across the globe regardless of a "2nd amendment"
> 
> even without the 2nd Amendment the right still exists
> 
> the 2nd Amendment is nothing more the a statement to such a natural right existing
> 
> however go ahead try and get a "repeal" good luck getting 3/4th of the states to ratify it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks.  You say-"Even without the 2nd amendment, there is a right"...that bears a little explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> go read the the writings and  works of founding fathers
> 
> if you dont understand that our rights are not given to those that run the government
> 
> i will even help you out lazy bones
> 
> Thomas Jefferson  - Online Library of Liberty
Click to expand...

You are NOT answering  my question. I have to do your homework? You can't defend something as a right that would destroy our other rights and take lives. It's time to rescind,repeal and remove the 2nd amendment .


----------



## jon_berzerk

MaryL said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gun crimes happen all across the globe regardless of a "2nd amendment"
> 
> even without the 2nd Amendment the right still exists
> 
> the 2nd Amendment is nothing more the a statement to such a natural right existing
> 
> however go ahead try and get a "repeal" good luck getting 3/4th of the states to ratify it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks.  You say-"Even without the 2nd amendment, there is a right"...that bears a little explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> go read the the writings and  works of founding fathers
> 
> if you dont understand that our rights are not given to those that run the government
> 
> i will even help you out lazy bones
> 
> Thomas Jefferson  - Online Library of Liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are NOT answering  my question. I have to do your homework? You can't defend something as a right that would destroy our other rights and take lives. It's time to rescind,repeal and remove the 2nd amendment .
Click to expand...



no you have not done your home work 

that is not my fault that is yours that you choose to be ignorant 

http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3506&context=wlulr


----------



## MaryL

jon_berzerk said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> How so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> gun crimes happen all across the globe regardless of a "2nd amendment"
> 
> even without the 2nd Amendment the right still exists
> 
> the 2nd Amendment is nothing more the a statement to such a natural right existing
> 
> however go ahead try and get a "repeal" good luck getting 3/4th of the states to ratify it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks.  You say-"Even without the 2nd amendment, there is a right"...that bears a little explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> go read the the writings and  works of founding fathers
> 
> if you dont understand that our rights are not given to those that run the government
> 
> i will even help you out lazy bones
> 
> Thomas Jefferson  - Online Library of Liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are NOT answering  my question. I have to do your homework? You can't defend something as a right that would destroy our other rights and take lives. It's time to rescind,repeal and remove the 2nd amendment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no you have not done your home work
> 
> that is not my fault that is yours that you choose to be ignorant
> 
> http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3506&context=wlulr
Click to expand...

Inform me , after all these  mass shootings I see we need to defend ourselves from firearms, nobody without firearms was ever the threat here. Skip the bullsh*t.


----------



## jon_berzerk

MaryL said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun crimes happen all across the globe regardless of a "2nd amendment"
> 
> even without the 2nd Amendment the right still exists
> 
> the 2nd Amendment is nothing more the a statement to such a natural right existing
> 
> however go ahead try and get a "repeal" good luck getting 3/4th of the states to ratify it
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  You say-"Even without the 2nd amendment, there is a right"...that bears a little explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> go read the the writings and  works of founding fathers
> 
> if you dont understand that our rights are not given to those that run the government
> 
> i will even help you out lazy bones
> 
> Thomas Jefferson  - Online Library of Liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are NOT answering  my question. I have to do your homework? You can't defend something as a right that would destroy our other rights and take lives. It's time to rescind,repeal and remove the 2nd amendment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no you have not done your home work
> 
> that is not my fault that is yours that you choose to be ignorant
> 
> http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3506&context=wlulr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inform me , after all these  mass shootings I see we need to defend ourselves from firearms, nobody without firearms was ever the threat here. Skip the bullsh*t.
Click to expand...



no it has been hashed over thousands of times in on this site 

if you cant do a little research when it is handed to you that is not my fault that is yours 

the old saying goes you can lead a fat lazy horse to water but you cant make her drink it 

remain ignorant


----------



## MaryL

jon_berzerk said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  You say-"Even without the 2nd amendment, there is a right"...that bears a little explanation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> go read the the writings and  works of founding fathers
> 
> if you dont understand that our rights are not given to those that run the government
> 
> i will even help you out lazy bones
> 
> Thomas Jefferson  - Online Library of Liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are NOT answering  my question. I have to do your homework? You can't defend something as a right that would destroy our other rights and take lives. It's time to rescind,repeal and remove the 2nd amendment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no you have not done your home work
> 
> that is not my fault that is yours that you choose to be ignorant
> 
> http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3506&context=wlulr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inform me , after all these  mass shootings I see we need to defend ourselves from firearms, nobody without firearms was ever the threat here. Skip the bullsh*t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it has been hashed over thousands of times in on this site
> 
> if you cant do a little research when it is handed to you that is not my fault that is yours
> 
> the old saying goes you can lead a fat lazy horse to water but you cant make her drink it
> 
> remain ignorant
Click to expand...

Please. Be condescending. That helps a lot. The Constitution is a beautiful document. And still given to abuses. We  have mass shootings of innocent people on  massive scale our fore-fathers never imagined, Which is my point, they NEVER imagined  the abuses that firearms would be given to.


----------



## jon_berzerk

MaryL said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> go read the the writings and  works of founding fathers
> 
> if you dont understand that our rights are not given to those that run the government
> 
> i will even help you out lazy bones
> 
> Thomas Jefferson  - Online Library of Liberty
> 
> 
> 
> You are NOT answering  my question. I have to do your homework? You can't defend something as a right that would destroy our other rights and take lives. It's time to rescind,repeal and remove the 2nd amendment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no you have not done your home work
> 
> that is not my fault that is yours that you choose to be ignorant
> 
> http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3506&context=wlulr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inform me , after all these  mass shootings I see we need to defend ourselves from firearms, nobody without firearms was ever the threat here. Skip the bullsh*t.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it has been hashed over thousands of times in on this site
> 
> if you cant do a little research when it is handed to you that is not my fault that is yours
> 
> the old saying goes you can lead a fat lazy horse to water but you cant make her drink it
> 
> remain ignorant
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Please. Be condescending. That helps a lot. The Constitution is a beautiful document. And still given to abuses. We  have mass shootings of innocent people on  massive scale our fore-fathers never imagined, Which is my point, they NEVER imagined  the abuses that firearms would be given to.
Click to expand...



no I am not 

it is a waste of time with you until 

you have had the decency to have read the provided material 

to have  base understanding 

my god how the fuck hard it is it to understand 

a natural right 

either read the basic information 

or remain ignorant 

i dont care either way


----------



## MaryL

I like guns. But I can do without  firearms. As an American, I  see how the NRA and the second amendment does more harm than good.  But's that me. All these mass shootings are the result of a  right to a free militia and the right to own arms, well that has got to end. We have state funded National Guard, and they have m-16s and F16s and I am good with that. Not allowing nutters shooting up preschools or anything else in 'Vegas has to end.


----------



## jon_berzerk

MaryL said:


> I like guns. But I can do without  firearms. As an American, I  see how the NRA and the second amendment does more harm than good.  But's that me. All these mass shootings are the result of a  right to a free militia and the right to own arms, well that has got to end. We have state funded National Guard, and they have m-16s and F16s and I am good with that. Not allowing nutters shooting up preschools or anything else in 'Vegas has to end.



so the problem is nutters not legal gun owners 

*yet* you want to strip the rights of legal gun owners 

of their natural right to firearms 


because you wrongly believe that will stop the nutters from killing


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

MaryL said:


> I like guns. But I can do without  firearms. As an American, I  see how the NRA and the second amendment does more harm than good.  But's that me. All these mass shootings are the result of a  right to a free militia and the right to own arms, well that has got to end. We have state funded National Guard, and they have m-16s and F16s and I am good with that. Not allowing nutters shooting up preschools or anything else in 'Vegas has to end.


Only two percent of gun crimes are committed with AR platform rifles of the type used by the Las Vegas shooter – ‘banning’ such weapons would therefore do little to decrease the number of gun deaths per year.


----------



## Chuz Life

Taz said:


> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.




Please provide a complete list of all the "meaningful" things you think can be done and should be done to prevent any more mass shooting. Be as specific as you can possibly be. Please also include as brief explanation of how the criminal / shooters will actually be prevented.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Chuz Life said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a complete list of all the "meaningful" things you think can be done and should be done to prevent any more mass shooting. Be as specific as you can possibly be. Please also include as brief explanation of how the criminal / shooters will actually be prevented.
Click to expand...


i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws


----------



## Skull Pilot

MaryL said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Just because of what happened in Las Vegas? NOW, that's a pretty big "BECAUSE".Things like that  happen because OF the 2nd Amendment, not in spite off it.  All these mass shootings speak for themselves. The 2nd amendment has become a more than an anachronism, its become an deficit and a threat more  than an benefit.  Let's repeal it. Stick a fork in it, it's done.
Click to expand...


1% of all murder occur in mass shootings.

The vast majority of people who legally own firearms will never kill anyone.

but things like facts don't concern you


----------



## Skull Pilot

MaryL said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> gun crimes happen all across the globe regardless of a "2nd amendment"
> 
> even without the 2nd Amendment the right still exists
> 
> the 2nd Amendment is nothing more the a statement to such a natural right existing
> 
> however go ahead try and get a "repeal" good luck getting 3/4th of the states to ratify it
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks.  You say-"Even without the 2nd amendment, there is a right"...that bears a little explanation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> go read the the writings and  works of founding fathers
> 
> if you dont understand that our rights are not given to those that run the government
> 
> i will even help you out lazy bones
> 
> Thomas Jefferson  - Online Library of Liberty
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are NOT answering  my question. I have to do your homework? You can't defend something as a right that would destroy our other rights and take lives. It's time to rescind,repeal and remove the 2nd amendment .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no you have not done your home work
> 
> that is not my fault that is yours that you choose to be ignorant
> 
> http://scholarlycommons.law.wlu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=3506&context=wlulr
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Inform me , after all these  mass shootings I see we need to defend ourselves from firearms, nobody without firearms was ever the threat here. Skip the bullsh*t.
Click to expand...


That guy with a truck who killed 80 people in France was quite a threat without firearms wasn't he


----------



## danielpalos

JimBowie1958 said:


> View attachment 154295


Let's get the right wing on board; they love to sink costs on nothing but repeal, anyway.


----------



## danielpalos

BlackSand said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That link doesn't mention "The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated". So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Democrat party doesn't want all your guns ... Yet anyways ...
> They just want to ban the ones that will keep you from putting up a good fight when they come for the rest.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Only well regulated militia is necessary, not the unorganized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

52ndStreet said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ultimate goal of the liberal left is to confiscate all  guns and rifles of American citizens and other nations on the Earth. Some New World Order liberal left agenda.Do the research!!. This is a fact.
> 
> 
> 
> I believe we merely need to insist, our legislators do their _Job_.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Like I said , the ultimate goal is to confiscate all small arms from all American citizens, and to delete United States  2nd  second amendment. This proposal was introduced at the United  Nations by then secretary of ambassador of the U.S. Hillary Clinton. And some of the other New World order fiends accepted the draft resolution. This is a fact, do the research.!!
Click to expand...

The fact is, we have a Second Amendment, we should have no security problems in our free States.


----------



## danielpalos

MaryL said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Just because of what happened in Las Vegas? NOW, that's a pretty big "BECAUSE".Things like that  happen because OF the 2nd Amendment, not in spite off it.  All these mass shootings speak for themselves. The 2nd amendment has become a more than an anachronism, its become an deficit and a threat more  than an benefit.  Let's repeal it. Stick a fork in it, it's done.
Click to expand...

No, it hasn't.  Our Founding Fathers did an Most Excellent job at the convention with our federal Constitution and supreme law of the land.  There No Thing, ambiguous about our supreme law of the land.

We have a Second Amendment, we should have no security problems.

We have Government, for a reason.


----------



## danielpalos

MaryL said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> Why? Just because of what happened in Las Vegas? NOW, that's a pretty big "BECAUSE".Things like that  happen because OF the 2nd Amendment, not in spite off it.  All these mass shootings speak for themselves. The 2nd amendment has become a more than an anachronism, its become an deficit and a threat more  than an benefit.  Let's repeal it. Stick a fork in it, it's done.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> bullshit
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How so?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> gun crimes happen all across the globe regardless of a "2nd amendment"
> 
> even without the 2nd Amendment the right still exists
> 
> the 2nd Amendment is nothing more the a statement to such a natural right existing
> 
> however go ahead try and get a "repeal" good luck getting 3/4th of the states to ratify it
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thanks.  You say-"Even without the 2nd amendment, there is a right"...that bears a little explanation.
Click to expand...

dear, there is no law that claims women should lie to men and let us miss our turn; why do y'all do it?


----------



## Taz

BlackSand said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you must have paranoid delusions if you think that anyone wants to take away ALL the guns. You can't even name one person who does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Damon does ... And has said so several times you ignorant twat ...
> Not that I really care what Matt Damon thinks ... But I did name one person right off the bat ... Which makes you wrong without much effort.
> 
> I am not delusional ... Just following the natural progression of things.
> When the Constitution was ratified ... It was legal for an US citizen to own a fast sailing ship with up to 8 cannons.
> Those cannons weren't for hunting or sport you nit-wit.
> 
> Over the years ... Our rights have been diminished ... And those on the left always come back to take away more.
> Your ignorance doesn't amount to me having delusions ... But you are free to remain ignorant ... I am not counting on you for anything.
> 
> 
> Edit:
> The "paranoid" part was a cute little addition to your comments.
> What makes you think I am paranoid anyone will want to confiscate my weapons?
> 
> I was in the military for 7 years ... Know how to use my firearms ... And I am not worried about any snowflake showing up to take them ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Matt Damon.    Like I say, nobody. 

When the Constitution was ratified, do you actually think that the Founding fathers had it in mind to safeguard a citizen's right to shoot 600 of their own citizens from a window in 10 minutes? In 10 minutes back in their day with a musket, they could have gotten off two dozen or less shots in the same time with bullets that may not even have made it as far as the Vegas shooter was shooting from.

So like I said, it's a false narrative to say that anyone serious wants to take away ALL your guns. I'm glad that you see that now. Happy I could help.


----------



## Taz

BlackSand said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you must have paranoid delusions if you think that anyone wants to take away ALL the guns. You can't even name one person who does.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Damon does ... And has said so several times you ignorant twat ...
> Not that I really care what Matt Damon thinks ... But I did name one person right off the bat ... Which makes you wrong without much effort.
> 
> I am not delusional ... Just following the natural progression of things.
> When the Constitution was ratified ... It was legal for an US citizen to own a fast sailing ship with up to 8 cannons.
> Those cannons weren't for hunting or sport you nit-wit.
> 
> Over the years ... Our rights have been diminished ... And those on the left always come back to take away more.
> Your ignorance doesn't amount to me having delusions ... But you are free to remain ignorant ... I am not counting on you for anything.
> 
> 
> Edit:
> The "paranoid" part was a cute little addition to your comments.
> What makes you think I am paranoid anyone will want to confiscate my weapons?
> 
> I was in the military for 7 years ... Know how to use my firearms ... And I am not worried about any snowflake showing up to take them ...
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Matt Damon.    Like I say, nobody.

When the Constitution was ratified, do you actually think that the Founding fathers had it in mind to safeguard a citizen's right to shoot 600 of their own citizens from a window in 10 minutes? In 10 minutes back in their day with a musket, they could have gotten off two dozen or less shots in the same time with bullets that may not even have made it as far as the Vegas shooter was shooting from.


52ndStreet said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That link doesn't mention "The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated". So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Democrat party doesn't want all your guns ... Yet anyways ...
> They just want to ban the ones that will keep you from putting up a good fight when they come for the rest.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly my point. If you don't have a fully automatic assault rifles, there is no way you can engage any confiscating all your weapons military force,domestic or foreign.The draft was co authored by a democrat Hilary Clinton when she worked at the United Nations.!!This is fact,do the research.!!
Click to expand...




Rustic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Whatever drugs you're on that are distorting your reality.... Can I have some?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I am high on life and all the wonderful things it offers.
> Not to mention you seem to have had your share of drugs already ... Keep on peddling that crap, some schmuck will probably buy it ...
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you must have paranoid delusions if you think that anyone wants to take away ALL the guns. You can't even name one person who does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firearm ownership is a personal thing it’s no one else’s business. Frivolous gun laws are for the feeble
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frivolous guns are for the feeble? You got THAT right, brah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the person that is scared to death of them… LOL firearms are harmless on their own
Click to expand...

More people are killed by guns in the US every year than have been killed by Muslims terrorists, EVER, and we bar Muslims from coming here. People don't need AR15s... and all that shit. Hunting rifles, a couple of handguns and that's it, max like 3 or 4 guns per person... There's thing that can be done. Just look at other countries that don't have all the mass shootings we have...


----------



## BlackSand

Taz said:


> Matt Damon.    Like I say, nobody.
> 
> When the Constitution was ratified, do you actually think that the Founding fathers had it in mind to safeguard a citizen's right to shoot 600 of their own citizens from a window in 10 minutes? In 10 minutes back in their day with a musket, they could have gotten off two dozen or less shots in the same time with bullets that may not even have made it as far as the Vegas shooter was shooting from.
> 
> So like I said, it's a false narrative to say that anyone serious wants to take away ALL your guns. I'm glad that you see that now. Happy I could help.



You are the only one promoting a false narrative ... 

You are the assuming you know what the Founding Father's intended.
When one reads their discussions on the matter ... Your arguments fall short of applying to anything they expressed.

You need to help yourself ... I don't need any help from you and never will.

.


----------



## Taz

Rustic said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That link doesn't mention "The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated". So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Democrat party doesn't want all your guns ... Yet anyways ...
> They just want to ban the ones that will keep you from putting up a good fight when they come for the rest.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly my point. If you don't have a fully automatic assault rifles, there is no way you can engage any confiscating all your weapons military force,domestic or foreign.The draft was co authored by a democrat Hilary Clinton when she worked at the United Nations.!!This is fact,do the research.!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the military would never go against their own country for the sake of the federal government, The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment
Click to expand...

The military will do what they are told. If it's shining each other's knob, they shine each other's knob...


----------



## Taz

BlackSand said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Damon.    Like I say, nobody.
> 
> When the Constitution was ratified, do you actually think that the Founding fathers had it in mind to safeguard a citizen's right to shoot 600 of their own citizens from a window in 10 minutes? In 10 minutes back in their day with a musket, they could have gotten off two dozen or less shots in the same time with bullets that may not even have made it as far as the Vegas shooter was shooting from.
> 
> So like I said, it's a false narrative to say that anyone serious wants to take away ALL your guns. I'm glad that you see that now. Happy I could help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one promoting a false narrative ...
> 
> You are the assuming you know what the Founding Father's intended.
> When one reads their discussions on the matter ... Your arguments fall short of applying to anything they expressed.
> 
> You need to help yourself ... I don't need any help from you and never will.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

You need a couple of hunting rifles and like, a couple of handguns, all that other shit is unnecessary, and anyways, there's already tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own, so no right is absolute, nor will you EVER have enough firepower to take down the Feds, like your paranoia demands.


----------



## Taz

52ndStreet said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> I am high on life and all the wonderful things it offers.
> Not to mention you seem to have had your share of drugs already ... Keep on peddling that crap, some schmuck will probably buy it ...
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> Then you must have paranoid delusions if you think that anyone wants to take away ALL the guns. You can't even name one person who does.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Firearm ownership is a personal thing it’s no one else’s business. Frivolous gun laws are for the feeble
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Frivolous guns are for the feeble? You got THAT right, brah.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the person that is scared to death of them… LOL firearms are harmless on their own
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Swiss are a nation were everyone is armed. They were never invaded by anyone during world war I or World War II.
Click to expand...

Personal firearms have nothing to do with being invaded or not. Other countries with tanks and planes got invaded...


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, Japan "disarmed" its citizens and has an extremely low gun crime rate. Among others.
> 
> 
> 
> The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.
> 
> This problem is going to have to addressed another way.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... in YOUR future only the the government will be allowed to have guns....good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need a gun. Never have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't needed one either but when I do I'll have one.  When you do you'll be a victim or dead.
Click to expand...

I live in a community so safe that I don't even lock my doors at night. If I thought I needed a gun, I'd get one. And I'm also a vegetarian, so I don't hunt either.


----------



## frigidweirdo

BlackSand said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Damon.    Like I say, nobody.
> 
> When the Constitution was ratified, do you actually think that the Founding fathers had it in mind to safeguard a citizen's right to shoot 600 of their own citizens from a window in 10 minutes? In 10 minutes back in their day with a musket, they could have gotten off two dozen or less shots in the same time with bullets that may not even have made it as far as the Vegas shooter was shooting from.
> 
> So like I said, it's a false narrative to say that anyone serious wants to take away ALL your guns. I'm glad that you see that now. Happy I could help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one promoting a false narrative ...
> 
> You are the assuming you know what the Founding Father's intended.
> When one reads their discussions on the matter ... Your arguments fall short of applying to anything they expressed.
> 
> You need to help yourself ... I don't need any help from you and never will.
> 
> .
Click to expand...


The funny thing is that when discussing the Second Amendment I can give plenty of what the Founding Fathers said, and the right will ignore it all because it goes against their agenda.


----------



## Rustic

Taz said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That link doesn't mention "The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated". So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Democrat party doesn't want all your guns ... Yet anyways ...
> They just want to ban the ones that will keep you from putting up a good fight when they come for the rest.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly my point. If you don't have a fully automatic assault rifles, there is no way you can engage any confiscating all your weapons military force,domestic or foreign.The draft was co authored by a democrat Hilary Clinton when she worked at the United Nations.!!This is fact,do the research.!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the military would never go against their own country for the sake of the federal government, The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military will do what they are told. If it's shining each other's knob, they shine each other's knob...
Click to expand...


They don’t give a shit about career politicians, They have no authority over them when It comes right down to it. Career politicians have no credibility


----------



## jon_berzerk

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.
> 
> This problem is going to have to addressed another way.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... in YOUR future only the the government will be allowed to have guns....good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need a gun. Never have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't needed one either but when I do I'll have one.  When you do you'll be a victim or dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in a community so safe that I don't even lock my doors at night. If I thought I needed a gun, I'd get one. And I'm also a vegetarian, so I don't hunt either.
Click to expand...



good for you but who cares

my rights are not based on your lifestyle


----------



## jon_berzerk

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.
> 
> This problem is going to have to addressed another way.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... in YOUR future only the the government will be allowed to have guns....good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need a gun. Never have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't needed one either but when I do I'll have one.  When you do you'll be a victim or dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in a community so safe that I don't even lock my doors at night. If I thought I needed a gun, I'd get one. And I'm also a vegetarian, so I don't hunt either.
Click to expand...



good for you  but who cares 

my rights are not based on your lifestyle


----------



## Taz

Chuz Life said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a complete list of all the "meaningful" things you think can be done and should be done to prevent any more mass shooting. Be as specific as you can possibly be. Please also include as brief explanation of how the criminal / shooters will actually be prevented.
Click to expand...

Is this an open book exam? 

Plenty of civilized countries have laws that protect citizens from the kind of regular mass shootings that the US experiences. take your pick. 

And I have to say that it's pretty ironic that a guy who calls himself Choose Life doesn't want to do anything to curb the killings. Hypocrite much?


----------



## Taz

jon_berzerk said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a complete list of all the "meaningful" things you think can be done and should be done to prevent any more mass shooting. Be as specific as you can possibly be. Please also include as brief explanation of how the criminal / shooters will actually be prevented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
Click to expand...

Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?


----------



## Taz

Rustic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> That link doesn't mention "The leadership of the democrat party wants all guns for civilians banned and confiscated". So you have nothing. Got it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Democrat party doesn't want all your guns ... Yet anyways ...
> They just want to ban the ones that will keep you from putting up a good fight when they come for the rest.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> This is exactly my point. If you don't have a fully automatic assault rifles, there is no way you can engage any confiscating all your weapons military force,domestic or foreign.The draft was co authored by a democrat Hilary Clinton when she worked at the United Nations.!!This is fact,do the research.!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the military would never go against their own country for the sake of the federal government, The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military will do what they are told. If it's shining each other's knob, they shine each other's knob...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don’t give a shit about career politicians, They have no authority over them when It comes right down to it. Career politicians have no credibility
Click to expand...

The military was recently sent into Iraq for no reason except to kill and be killed, and the military went right along with that stupid decision.


----------



## Rustic

Taz said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Damon.    Like I say, nobody.
> 
> When the Constitution was ratified, do you actually think that the Founding fathers had it in mind to safeguard a citizen's right to shoot 600 of their own citizens from a window in 10 minutes? In 10 minutes back in their day with a musket, they could have gotten off two dozen or less shots in the same time with bullets that may not even have made it as far as the Vegas shooter was shooting from.
> 
> So like I said, it's a false narrative to say that anyone serious wants to take away ALL your guns. I'm glad that you see that now. Happy I could help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one promoting a false narrative ...
> 
> You are the assuming you know what the Founding Father's intended.
> When one reads their discussions on the matter ... Your arguments fall short of applying to anything they expressed.
> 
> You need to help yourself ... I don't need any help from you and never will.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a couple of hunting rifles and like, a couple of handguns, all that other shit is unnecessary, and anyways, there's already tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own, so no right is absolute, nor will you EVER have enough firepower to take down the Feds, like your paranoia demands.
Click to expand...

The Second amendment is absolute till someone fucks it up for themselves. Like criminal activity


----------



## Rustic

Taz said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course the Democrat party doesn't want all your guns ... Yet anyways ...
> They just want to ban the ones that will keep you from putting up a good fight when they come for the rest.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly my point. If you don't have a fully automatic assault rifles, there is no way you can engage any confiscating all your weapons military force,domestic or foreign.The draft was co authored by a democrat Hilary Clinton when she worked at the United Nations.!!This is fact,do the research.!!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And the military would never go against their own country for the sake of the federal government, The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military will do what they are told. If it's shining each other's knob, they shine each other's knob...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don’t give a shit about career politicians, They have no authority over them when It comes right down to it. Career politicians have no credibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military was recently sent into Iraq for no reason except to kill and be killed, and the military went right along with that stupid decision.
Click to expand...

That’s different then going after their own citizens, the military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment.


----------



## Taz

jon_berzerk said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... in YOUR future only the the government will be allowed to have guns....good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need a gun. Never have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't needed one either but when I do I'll have one.  When you do you'll be a victim or dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in a community so safe that I don't even lock my doors at night. If I thought I needed a gun, I'd get one. And I'm also a vegetarian, so I don't hunt either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> good for you but who cares
> 
> my rights are not based on your lifestyle
Click to expand...

I know, lol, it has nothing to do with gun control. I should have just said that it's a false narrative to say that anyone wants to take away ALL your guns... EXCEPT Matt Damon.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a complete list of all the "meaningful" things you think can be done and should be done to prevent any more mass shooting. Be as specific as you can possibly be. Please also include as brief explanation of how the criminal / shooters will actually be prevented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
Click to expand...



why do you want to make honest folks into criminals


----------



## Taz

Rustic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Damon.    Like I say, nobody.
> 
> When the Constitution was ratified, do you actually think that the Founding fathers had it in mind to safeguard a citizen's right to shoot 600 of their own citizens from a window in 10 minutes? In 10 minutes back in their day with a musket, they could have gotten off two dozen or less shots in the same time with bullets that may not even have made it as far as the Vegas shooter was shooting from.
> 
> So like I said, it's a false narrative to say that anyone serious wants to take away ALL your guns. I'm glad that you see that now. Happy I could help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one promoting a false narrative ...
> 
> You are the assuming you know what the Founding Father's intended.
> When one reads their discussions on the matter ... Your arguments fall short of applying to anything they expressed.
> 
> You need to help yourself ... I don't need any help from you and never will.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a couple of hunting rifles and like, a couple of handguns, all that other shit is unnecessary, and anyways, there's already tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own, so no right is absolute, nor will you EVER have enough firepower to take down the Feds, like your paranoia demands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second amendment is absolute till someone fucks it up for themselves. Like criminal activity
Click to expand...

The 2nd isn't absolute, there are tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own. Like, how many citizens own a nuke? None, that's how many.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a complete list of all the "meaningful" things you think can be done and should be done to prevent any more mass shooting. Be as specific as you can possibly be. Please also include as brief explanation of how the criminal / shooters will actually be prevented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
Click to expand...



why do you want to make honest folks into criminals


----------



## Taz

Rustic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Damon.    Like I say, nobody.
> 
> When the Constitution was ratified, do you actually think that the Founding fathers had it in mind to safeguard a citizen's right to shoot 600 of their own citizens from a window in 10 minutes? In 10 minutes back in their day with a musket, they could have gotten off two dozen or less shots in the same time with bullets that may not even have made it as far as the Vegas shooter was shooting from.
> 
> So like I said, it's a false narrative to say that anyone serious wants to take away ALL your guns. I'm glad that you see that now. Happy I could help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one promoting a false narrative ...
> 
> You are the assuming you know what the Founding Father's intended.
> When one reads their discussions on the matter ... Your arguments fall short of applying to anything they expressed.
> 
> You need to help yourself ... I don't need any help from you and never will.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a couple of hunting rifles and like, a couple of handguns, all that other shit is unnecessary, and anyways, there's already tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own, so no right is absolute, nor will you EVER have enough firepower to take down the Feds, like your paranoia demands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second amendment is absolute till someone fucks it up for themselves. Like criminal activity
Click to expand...

The 2nd isn't absolute, there are tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own. Like, how many citizens o


Rustic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> This is exactly my point. If you don't have a fully automatic assault rifles, there is no way you can engage any confiscating all your weapons military force,domestic or foreign.The draft was co authored by a democrat Hilary Clinton when she worked at the United Nations.!!This is fact,do the research.!!
> 
> 
> 
> And the military would never go against their own country for the sake of the federal government, The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military will do what they are told. If it's shining each other's knob, they shine each other's knob...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don’t give a shit about career politicians, They have no authority over them when It comes right down to it. Career politicians have no credibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military was recently sent into Iraq for no reason except to kill and be killed, and the military went right along with that stupid decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s different then going after their own citizens, the military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment.
Click to expand...

Look up this thing called "The Civil War" and then come back and try to tell me that the military won't go after their own.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Taz said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Damon.    Like I say, nobody.
> 
> When the Constitution was ratified, do you actually think that the Founding fathers had it in mind to safeguard a citizen's right to shoot 600 of their own citizens from a window in 10 minutes? In 10 minutes back in their day with a musket, they could have gotten off two dozen or less shots in the same time with bullets that may not even have made it as far as the Vegas shooter was shooting from.
> 
> So like I said, it's a false narrative to say that anyone serious wants to take away ALL your guns. I'm glad that you see that now. Happy I could help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one promoting a false narrative ...
> 
> You are the assuming you know what the Founding Father's intended.
> When one reads their discussions on the matter ... Your arguments fall short of applying to anything they expressed.
> 
> You need to help yourself ... I don't need any help from you and never will.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a couple of hunting rifles and like, a couple of handguns, all that other shit is unnecessary, and anyways, there's already tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own, so no right is absolute, nor will you EVER have enough firepower to take down the Feds, like your paranoia demands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second amendment is absolute till someone fucks it up for themselves. Like criminal activity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd isn't absolute, there are tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own. Like, how many citizens o
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the military would never go against their own country for the sake of the federal government, The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military will do what they are told. If it's shining each other's knob, they shine each other's knob...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don’t give a shit about career politicians, They have no authority over them when It comes right down to it. Career politicians have no credibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military was recently sent into Iraq for no reason except to kill and be killed, and the military went right along with that stupid decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s different then going after their own citizens, the military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look up this thing called "The Civil War" and then come back and try to tell me that the Feds won't go after their own.
Click to expand...



yes they like it better to do so when 

their own are defenseless


----------



## jon_berzerk

Taz said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Damon.    Like I say, nobody.
> 
> When the Constitution was ratified, do you actually think that the Founding fathers had it in mind to safeguard a citizen's right to shoot 600 of their own citizens from a window in 10 minutes? In 10 minutes back in their day with a musket, they could have gotten off two dozen or less shots in the same time with bullets that may not even have made it as far as the Vegas shooter was shooting from.
> 
> So like I said, it's a false narrative to say that anyone serious wants to take away ALL your guns. I'm glad that you see that now. Happy I could help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one promoting a false narrative ...
> 
> You are the assuming you know what the Founding Father's intended.
> When one reads their discussions on the matter ... Your arguments fall short of applying to anything they expressed.
> 
> You need to help yourself ... I don't need any help from you and never will.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a couple of hunting rifles and like, a couple of handguns, all that other shit is unnecessary, and anyways, there's already tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own, so no right is absolute, nor will you EVER have enough firepower to take down the Feds, like your paranoia demands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second amendment is absolute till someone fucks it up for themselves. Like criminal activity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd isn't absolute, there are tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own. Like, how many citizens o
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the military would never go against their own country for the sake of the federal government, The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military will do what they are told. If it's shining each other's knob, they shine each other's knob...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don’t give a shit about career politicians, They have no authority over them when It comes right down to it. Career politicians have no credibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military was recently sent into Iraq for no reason except to kill and be killed, and the military went right along with that stupid decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s different then going after their own citizens, the military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look up this thing called "The Civil War" and then come back and try to tell me that the Feds won't go after their own.
Click to expand...



yes they like it better to do so when 

their own are defenseless


----------



## Taz

jon_berzerk said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a complete list of all the "meaningful" things you think can be done and should be done to prevent any more mass shooting. Be as specific as you can possibly be. Please also include as brief explanation of how the criminal / shooters will actually be prevented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why do you want to make honest folks into criminals
Click to expand...

What does that mean?


----------



## Rustic

Taz said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Damon.    Like I say, nobody.
> 
> When the Constitution was ratified, do you actually think that the Founding fathers had it in mind to safeguard a citizen's right to shoot 600 of their own citizens from a window in 10 minutes? In 10 minutes back in their day with a musket, they could have gotten off two dozen or less shots in the same time with bullets that may not even have made it as far as the Vegas shooter was shooting from.
> 
> So like I said, it's a false narrative to say that anyone serious wants to take away ALL your guns. I'm glad that you see that now. Happy I could help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one promoting a false narrative ...
> 
> You are the assuming you know what the Founding Father's intended.
> When one reads their discussions on the matter ... Your arguments fall short of applying to anything they expressed.
> 
> You need to help yourself ... I don't need any help from you and never will.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a couple of hunting rifles and like, a couple of handguns, all that other shit is unnecessary, and anyways, there's already tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own, so no right is absolute, nor will you EVER have enough firepower to take down the Feds, like your paranoia demands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second amendment is absolute till someone fucks it up for themselves. Like criminal activity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd isn't absolute, there are tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own. Like, how many citizens o
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> And the military would never go against their own country for the sake of the federal government, The military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military will do what they are told. If it's shining each other's knob, they shine each other's knob...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don’t give a shit about career politicians, They have no authority over them when It comes right down to it. Career politicians have no credibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military was recently sent into Iraq for no reason except to kill and be killed, and the military went right along with that stupid decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s different then going after their own citizens, the military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look up this thing called "The Civil War" and then come back and try to tell me that the military won't go after their own.
Click to expand...

When you comes to the Second Amendment they will not go against their own country, guaranteed. They will tell the federal government fuck off.... lol


----------



## Taz

Rustic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Damon.    Like I say, nobody.
> 
> When the Constitution was ratified, do you actually think that the Founding fathers had it in mind to safeguard a citizen's right to shoot 600 of their own citizens from a window in 10 minutes? In 10 minutes back in their day with a musket, they could have gotten off two dozen or less shots in the same time with bullets that may not even have made it as far as the Vegas shooter was shooting from.
> 
> So like I said, it's a false narrative to say that anyone serious wants to take away ALL your guns. I'm glad that you see that now. Happy I could help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one promoting a false narrative ...
> 
> You are the assuming you know what the Founding Father's intended.
> When one reads their discussions on the matter ... Your arguments fall short of applying to anything they expressed.
> 
> You need to help yourself ... I don't need any help from you and never will.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a couple of hunting rifles and like, a couple of handguns, all that other shit is unnecessary, and anyways, there's already tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own, so no right is absolute, nor will you EVER have enough firepower to take down the Feds, like your paranoia demands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second amendment is absolute till someone fucks it up for themselves. Like criminal activity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd isn't absolute, there are tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own. Like, how many citizens o
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military will do what they are told. If it's shining each other's knob, they shine each other's knob...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don’t give a shit about career politicians, They have no authority over them when It comes right down to it. Career politicians have no credibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military was recently sent into Iraq for no reason except to kill and be killed, and the military went right along with that stupid decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s different then going after their own citizens, the military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look up this thing called "The Civil War" and then come back and try to tell me that the military won't go after their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you comes to the Second Amendment they will not go against their own country, guaranteed. They will tell the federal government fuck off.... lol
Click to expand...

Maybe in one of your wet dreams that'll happen.


----------



## Rustic

Taz said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one promoting a false narrative ...
> 
> You are the assuming you know what the Founding Father's intended.
> When one reads their discussions on the matter ... Your arguments fall short of applying to anything they expressed.
> 
> You need to help yourself ... I don't need any help from you and never will.
> 
> .
> 
> 
> 
> You need a couple of hunting rifles and like, a couple of handguns, all that other shit is unnecessary, and anyways, there's already tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own, so no right is absolute, nor will you EVER have enough firepower to take down the Feds, like your paranoia demands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second amendment is absolute till someone fucks it up for themselves. Like criminal activity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd isn't absolute, there are tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own. Like, how many citizens o
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> They don’t give a shit about career politicians, They have no authority over them when It comes right down to it. Career politicians have no credibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military was recently sent into Iraq for no reason except to kill and be killed, and the military went right along with that stupid decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s different then going after their own citizens, the military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look up this thing called "The Civil War" and then come back and try to tell me that the military won't go after their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you comes to the Second Amendment they will not go against their own country, guaranteed. They will tell the federal government fuck off.... lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in one of your wet dreams that'll happen.
Click to expand...

The Military think career politicians/the deep state are spineless cowards, They have absolutely no respect for them. Only a fool would


----------



## Taz

Rustic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need a couple of hunting rifles and like, a couple of handguns, all that other shit is unnecessary, and anyways, there's already tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own, so no right is absolute, nor will you EVER have enough firepower to take down the Feds, like your paranoia demands.
> 
> 
> 
> The Second amendment is absolute till someone fucks it up for themselves. Like criminal activity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd isn't absolute, there are tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own. Like, how many citizens o
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military was recently sent into Iraq for no reason except to kill and be killed, and the military went right along with that stupid decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s different then going after their own citizens, the military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look up this thing called "The Civil War" and then come back and try to tell me that the military won't go after their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you comes to the Second Amendment they will not go against their own country, guaranteed. They will tell the federal government fuck off.... lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in one of your wet dreams that'll happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Military think career politicians/the deep state are spineless cowards, They have absolutely no respect for them. Only a fool would
Click to expand...

You're right, Trump IS a spineless coward.


----------



## Rustic

Taz said:


> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second amendment is absolute till someone fucks it up for themselves. Like criminal activity
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd isn't absolute, there are tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own. Like, how many citizens o
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> That’s different then going after their own citizens, the military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look up this thing called "The Civil War" and then come back and try to tell me that the military won't go after their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you comes to the Second Amendment they will not go against their own country, guaranteed. They will tell the federal government fuck off.... lol
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in one of your wet dreams that'll happen.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Military think career politicians/the deep state are spineless cowards, They have absolutely no respect for them. Only a fool would
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're right, Trump IS a spineless coward.
Click to expand...

The country and the federal government or not one in the same year, thankfully.
Up till this point Trump has not acted like a career politician, that is a good thing for the country...


----------



## jon_berzerk

Rustic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Damon.    Like I say, nobody.
> 
> When the Constitution was ratified, do you actually think that the Founding fathers had it in mind to safeguard a citizen's right to shoot 600 of their own citizens from a window in 10 minutes? In 10 minutes back in their day with a musket, they could have gotten off two dozen or less shots in the same time with bullets that may not even have made it as far as the Vegas shooter was shooting from.
> 
> So like I said, it's a false narrative to say that anyone serious wants to take away ALL your guns. I'm glad that you see that now. Happy I could help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one promoting a false narrative ...
> 
> You are the assuming you know what the Founding Father's intended.
> When one reads their discussions on the matter ... Your arguments fall short of applying to anything they expressed.
> 
> You need to help yourself ... I don't need any help from you and never will.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a couple of hunting rifles and like, a couple of handguns, all that other shit is unnecessary, and anyways, there's already tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own, so no right is absolute, nor will you EVER have enough firepower to take down the Feds, like your paranoia demands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second amendment is absolute till someone fucks it up for themselves. Like criminal activity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd isn't absolute, there are tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own. Like, how many citizens o
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military will do what they are told. If it's shining each other's knob, they shine each other's knob...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don’t give a shit about career politicians, They have no authority over them when It comes right down to it. Career politicians have no credibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military was recently sent into Iraq for no reason except to kill and be killed, and the military went right along with that stupid decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s different then going after their own citizens, the military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look up this thing called "The Civil War" and then come back and try to tell me that the military won't go after their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you comes to the Second Amendment they will not go against their own country, guaranteed. They will tell the federal government fuck off.... lol
Click to expand...



many will very few wish to be communist


----------



## jon_berzerk

Rustic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Damon.    Like I say, nobody.
> 
> When the Constitution was ratified, do you actually think that the Founding fathers had it in mind to safeguard a citizen's right to shoot 600 of their own citizens from a window in 10 minutes? In 10 minutes back in their day with a musket, they could have gotten off two dozen or less shots in the same time with bullets that may not even have made it as far as the Vegas shooter was shooting from.
> 
> So like I said, it's a false narrative to say that anyone serious wants to take away ALL your guns. I'm glad that you see that now. Happy I could help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one promoting a false narrative ...
> 
> You are the assuming you know what the Founding Father's intended.
> When one reads their discussions on the matter ... Your arguments fall short of applying to anything they expressed.
> 
> You need to help yourself ... I don't need any help from you and never will.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a couple of hunting rifles and like, a couple of handguns, all that other shit is unnecessary, and anyways, there's already tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own, so no right is absolute, nor will you EVER have enough firepower to take down the Feds, like your paranoia demands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second amendment is absolute till someone fucks it up for themselves. Like criminal activity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd isn't absolute, there are tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own. Like, how many citizens o
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military will do what they are told. If it's shining each other's knob, they shine each other's knob...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don’t give a shit about career politicians, They have no authority over them when It comes right down to it. Career politicians have no credibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military was recently sent into Iraq for no reason except to kill and be killed, and the military went right along with that stupid decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s different then going after their own citizens, the military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look up this thing called "The Civil War" and then come back and try to tell me that the military won't go after their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you comes to the Second Amendment they will not go against their own country, guaranteed. They will tell the federal government fuck off.... lol
Click to expand...



many will very few wish to be communist


----------



## jon_berzerk

Rustic said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Matt Damon.    Like I say, nobody.
> 
> When the Constitution was ratified, do you actually think that the Founding fathers had it in mind to safeguard a citizen's right to shoot 600 of their own citizens from a window in 10 minutes? In 10 minutes back in their day with a musket, they could have gotten off two dozen or less shots in the same time with bullets that may not even have made it as far as the Vegas shooter was shooting from.
> 
> So like I said, it's a false narrative to say that anyone serious wants to take away ALL your guns. I'm glad that you see that now. Happy I could help.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are the only one promoting a false narrative ...
> 
> You are the assuming you know what the Founding Father's intended.
> When one reads their discussions on the matter ... Your arguments fall short of applying to anything they expressed.
> 
> You need to help yourself ... I don't need any help from you and never will.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You need a couple of hunting rifles and like, a couple of handguns, all that other shit is unnecessary, and anyways, there's already tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own, so no right is absolute, nor will you EVER have enough firepower to take down the Feds, like your paranoia demands.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second amendment is absolute till someone fucks it up for themselves. Like criminal activity
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The 2nd isn't absolute, there are tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own. Like, how many citizens o
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rustic said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The military will do what they are told. If it's shining each other's knob, they shine each other's knob...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They don’t give a shit about career politicians, They have no authority over them when It comes right down to it. Career politicians have no credibility
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The military was recently sent into Iraq for no reason except to kill and be killed, and the military went right along with that stupid decision.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That’s different then going after their own citizens, the military is overwhelmingly pro second amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Look up this thing called "The Civil War" and then come back and try to tell me that the military won't go after their own.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> When you comes to the Second Amendment they will not go against their own country, guaranteed. They will tell the federal government fuck off.... lol
Click to expand...



many will very few wish to be communist


----------



## BlackSand

Taz said:


> The 2nd isn't absolute, there are tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own. Like, how many citizens own a nuke? None, that's how many.



The Second Amendment isn't absolute ... But nobody is asking you what should be allowed ... Nor do we care what you or Matt Damon thinks.

.


----------



## Taz

BlackSand said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd isn't absolute, there are tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own. Like, how many citizens own a nuke? None, that's how many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment isn't absolute ... But nobody is asking you what should be allowed ... Nor do we care what you or Matt Damon thinks.
> 
> .
Click to expand...

Then you must be content with the recurring mass shootings?


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> BlackSand said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The 2nd isn't absolute, there are tons of weapons that you're not allowed to own. Like, how many citizens own a nuke? None, that's how many.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment isn't absolute ... But nobody is asking you what should be allowed ... Nor do we care what you or Matt Damon thinks.
> 
> .
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you must be content with the recurring mass shootings?
Click to expand...



No one is content with mass shootings or the death of innocents....but nothing you anti gunners propose would actually address the problem, and would leave millions of Americans with no way to stop a violent criminal attack...since the facts are, that in 2016 mass public shooters murdered 71 people....one man in Nice, France murdered 89 people with a rental truck, while here in the U.S., each year, Americans use guns to stop violent criminals 1,500,000 times....those are rapes, murders and robberies stopped, lives saved, and lives kept whole because we have armed civilians to stop them.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yousaidwhat said:
> 
> 
> 
> The citizens of this country are not going to agree to being disarmed.
> 
> This problem is going to have to addressed another way.
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So... in YOUR future only the the government will be allowed to have guns....good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need a gun. Never have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't needed one either but when I do I'll have one.  When you do you'll be a victim or dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in a community so safe that I don't even lock my doors at night. If I thought I needed a gun, I'd get one. And I'm also a vegetarian, so I don't hunt either.
Click to expand...

If you don't lock your doors at night you're an ever bigger idiot than I thought and that's saying something


----------



## Chuz Life

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a complete list of all the "meaningful" things you think can be done and should be done to prevent any more mass shooting. Be as specific as you can possibly be. Please also include as brief explanation of how the criminal / shooters will actually be prevented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
Click to expand...

So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good. 

What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Leo123 said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you are going to have to live with mass shootings on a regular basis. maybe sometime in the future, another generation... will see the absurdity of the current system, and they will start to take the appropriate measures. Societies usually get more civilized over time, not less. Well... usually... lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So... in YOUR future only the the government will be allowed to have guns....good luck with that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need a gun. Never have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I haven't needed one either but when I do I'll have one.  When you do you'll be a victim or dead.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I live in a community so safe that I don't even lock my doors at night. If I thought I needed a gun, I'd get one. And I'm also a vegetarian, so I don't hunt either.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you don't lock your doors at night you're an ever bigger idiot than I thought and that's saying something
Click to expand...

Coming from you, meh.


----------



## Taz

Chuz Life said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a complete list of all the "meaningful" things you think can be done and should be done to prevent any more mass shooting. Be as specific as you can possibly be. Please also include as brief explanation of how the criminal / shooters will actually be prevented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
Click to expand...




Chuz Life said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a complete list of all the "meaningful" things you think can be done and should be done to prevent any more mass shooting. Be as specific as you can possibly be. Please also include as brief explanation of how the criminal / shooters will actually be prevented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
Click to expand...

So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?


----------



## Chuz Life

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a complete list of all the "meaningful" things you think can be done and should be done to prevent any more mass shooting. Be as specific as you can possibly be. Please also include as brief explanation of how the criminal / shooters will actually be prevented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've accepted mass shooting since you've never wanted to do anything meaningful to stop them.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a complete list of all the "meaningful" things you think can be done and should be done to prevent any more mass shooting. Be as specific as you can possibly be. Please also include as brief explanation of how the criminal / shooters will actually be prevented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
Click to expand...


I asked you what the purpose of a law is. 

To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?


----------



## jon_berzerk

Chuz Life said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a complete list of all the "meaningful" things you think can be done and should be done to prevent any more mass shooting. Be as specific as you can possibly be. Please also include as brief explanation of how the criminal / shooters will actually be prevented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a complete list of all the "meaningful" things you think can be done and should be done to prevent any more mass shooting. Be as specific as you can possibly be. Please also include as brief explanation of how the criminal / shooters will actually be prevented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
Click to expand...


yes you do or it is just another useless feel good law 

that serves to only punish the law abiding


----------



## Taz

Chuz Life said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a complete list of all the "meaningful" things you think can be done and should be done to prevent any more mass shooting. Be as specific as you can possibly be. Please also include as brief explanation of how the criminal / shooters will actually be prevented.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Please provide a complete list of all the "meaningful" things you think can be done and should be done to prevent any more mass shooting. Be as specific as you can possibly be. Please also include as brief explanation of how the criminal / shooters will actually be prevented.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
Click to expand...

The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
Click to expand...



yeah some  22 thousand of them 

all wrote for feel good reasons 

sop why write another that is only going after the law abiding


----------



## Taz

jon_berzerk said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yeah some  22 thousand of them
> 
> all wrote for feel good reasons
> 
> sop why write another that is only going after the law abiding
Click to expand...

Not what I said. I would overhaul the whole system, but the peeps aren't ready for that yet. Probably sometime in the future when US society is more evolved, and they get tired of all the mass killings.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yeah some  22 thousand of them
> 
> all wrote for feel good reasons
> 
> sop why write another that is only going after the law abiding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not what I said. I would overhaul the whole system, but the peeps aren't ready for that yet. Probably sometime in the future when US society is more evolved, and they get tired of all the mass killings.
Click to expand...



people already are 

however writing a useless anti gun law provides no benefit 

to stopping such thing


----------



## Taz

jon_berzerk said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yeah some  22 thousand of them
> 
> all wrote for feel good reasons
> 
> sop why write another that is only going after the law abiding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not what I said. I would overhaul the whole system, but the peeps aren't ready for that yet. Probably sometime in the future when US society is more evolved, and they get tired of all the mass killings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> people already are
> 
> however writing a useless anti gun law provides no benefit
> 
> to stopping such thing
Click to expand...

If you're so tired of mass killings, why are you so adamant about not doing anything? Have you simply given up? In which case, get the fuck out of the way so someone with balls can do something...


----------



## jon_berzerk

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yeah some  22 thousand of them
> 
> all wrote for feel good reasons
> 
> sop why write another that is only going after the law abiding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not what I said. I would overhaul the whole system, but the peeps aren't ready for that yet. Probably sometime in the future when US society is more evolved, and they get tired of all the mass killings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> people already are
> 
> however writing a useless anti gun law provides no benefit
> 
> to stopping such thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're so tired of mass killings, why are you so adamant about not doing anything? Have you simply given up? In which case, get the fuck out of the way so someone with balls can do something...
Click to expand...



who says im adamant about doing nothing 

that is completely incorrect 

however that does not change my mind to have another useless law on the books 

so fuck you shit head i will never surrender my right to honest ownership of firearms 

to appease your sense that writing a useless law is helpful ya jack ass 

if anything writing a feel good law is the "ball less" action


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yeah some  22 thousand of them
> 
> all wrote for feel good reasons
> 
> sop why write another that is only going after the law abiding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not what I said. I would overhaul the whole system, but the peeps aren't ready for that yet. Probably sometime in the future when US society is more evolved, and they get tired of all the mass killings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> people already are
> 
> however writing a useless anti gun law provides no benefit
> 
> to stopping such thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're so tired of mass killings, why are you so adamant about not doing anything? Have you simply given up? In which case, get the fuck out of the way so someone with balls can do something...
Click to expand...

That leaves you out


----------



## Taz

jon_berzerk said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah some  22 thousand of them
> 
> all wrote for feel good reasons
> 
> sop why write another that is only going after the law abiding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not what I said. I would overhaul the whole system, but the peeps aren't ready for that yet. Probably sometime in the future when US society is more evolved, and they get tired of all the mass killings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> people already are
> 
> however writing a useless anti gun law provides no benefit
> 
> to stopping such thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're so tired of mass killings, why are you so adamant about not doing anything? Have you simply given up? In which case, get the fuck out of the way so someone with balls can do something...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> who says im adamant about doing nothing
> 
> that is completely incorrect
> 
> however that does not change my mind to have another useless law on the books
> 
> so fuck you shit head i will never surrender my right to honest ownership of firearms
> 
> to appease your sense that writing a useless law is helpful ya jack ass
> 
> if anything writing a feel good law is the "ball less" action
Click to expand...

If you look up the word "adamant" and then re-read your last post, you'll agree that it is the right word to describe you. You should also go check in a mirror, you may be foaming at the mouth.


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> yeah some  22 thousand of them
> 
> all wrote for feel good reasons
> 
> sop why write another that is only going after the law abiding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not what I said. I would overhaul the whole system, but the peeps aren't ready for that yet. Probably sometime in the future when US society is more evolved, and they get tired of all the mass killings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> people already are
> 
> however writing a useless anti gun law provides no benefit
> 
> to stopping such thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're so tired of mass killings, why are you so adamant about not doing anything? Have you simply given up? In which case, get the fuck out of the way so someone with balls can do something...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That leaves you out
Click to expand...

And you.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah some  22 thousand of them
> 
> all wrote for feel good reasons
> 
> sop why write another that is only going after the law abiding
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said. I would overhaul the whole system, but the peeps aren't ready for that yet. Probably sometime in the future when US society is more evolved, and they get tired of all the mass killings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> people already are
> 
> however writing a useless anti gun law provides no benefit
> 
> to stopping such thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're so tired of mass killings, why are you so adamant about not doing anything? Have you simply given up? In which case, get the fuck out of the way so someone with balls can do something...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That leaves you out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you.
Click to expand...

 Wow your rapier like wit cuts me to the quick

Please don't follow that pithy retort up with an "Oh yeah"


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said. I would overhaul the whole system, but the peeps aren't ready for that yet. Probably sometime in the future when US society is more evolved, and they get tired of all the mass killings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people already are
> 
> however writing a useless anti gun law provides no benefit
> 
> to stopping such thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're so tired of mass killings, why are you so adamant about not doing anything? Have you simply given up? In which case, get the fuck out of the way so someone with balls can do something...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That leaves you out
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> And you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wow your rapier like wit cuts me to the quick
> 
> Please don't follow that pithy retort up with an "Oh yeah"
Click to expand...

Are you commenting on YOUR post or mine?


----------



## danielpalos

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
Click to expand...

Better _aqueducts_, better _roads_, and more _well regulated_ militia.

We should not have security problems in our free States.


----------



## Chuz Life

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
Click to expand...


Give the exact language of a law that would work better.


----------



## danielpalos

Chuz Life said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
Click to expand...

The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## Chuz Life

danielpalos said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...


Not that I  disagree with that. . . How would a law like that keep the guns out of the hands of criminals? That's what Taz  claims we need to have.


----------



## danielpalos

Chuz Life said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that I  disagree with that. . . How would a law like that keep the guns out of the hands of criminals? That's what Taz  claims we need to have.
Click to expand...

The Second part applies, to advance the Cause of the first part.


----------



## Chuz Life

danielpalos said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that I  disagree with that. . . How would a law like that keep the guns out of the hands of criminals? That's what Taz  claims we need to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second part applies, to advance the Cause of the first part.
Click to expand...


Playing devils advocate here. . .  what is in that law to keep any one or group of "militia members" from going rogue and from using their guns in a criminal act?


----------



## jon_berzerk

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> yeah some  22 thousand of them
> 
> all wrote for feel good reasons
> 
> sop why write another that is only going after the law abiding
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said. I would overhaul the whole system, but the peeps aren't ready for that yet. Probably sometime in the future when US society is more evolved, and they get tired of all the mass killings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> people already are
> 
> however writing a useless anti gun law provides no benefit
> 
> to stopping such thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're so tired of mass killings, why are you so adamant about not doing anything? Have you simply given up? In which case, get the fuck out of the way so someone with balls can do something...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> who says im adamant about doing nothing
> 
> that is completely incorrect
> 
> however that does not change my mind to have another useless law on the books
> 
> so fuck you shit head i will never surrender my right to honest ownership of firearms
> 
> to appease your sense that writing a useless law is helpful ya jack ass
> 
> if anything writing a feel good law is the "ball less" action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you look up the word "adamant" and then re-read your last post, you'll agree that it is the right word to describe you. You should also go check in a mirror, you may be foaming at the mouth.
Click to expand...



no it does not describe me you dont have a clue pal what you accusing me of 

it just does not make any sense writing useless laws 

insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting different results 

which is exactly what you are suggesting


----------



## Taz

Chuz Life said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
Click to expand...

We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.

Works for me.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
Click to expand...



again good luck with that 

--LOL


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
Click to expand...

Won't happen in your lifetime.


----------



## Taz

jon_berzerk said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not what I said. I would overhaul the whole system, but the peeps aren't ready for that yet. Probably sometime in the future when US society is more evolved, and they get tired of all the mass killings.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> people already are
> 
> however writing a useless anti gun law provides no benefit
> 
> to stopping such thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're so tired of mass killings, why are you so adamant about not doing anything? Have you simply given up? In which case, get the fuck out of the way so someone with balls can do something...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> who says im adamant about doing nothing
> 
> that is completely incorrect
> 
> however that does not change my mind to have another useless law on the books
> 
> so fuck you shit head i will never surrender my right to honest ownership of firearms
> 
> to appease your sense that writing a useless law is helpful ya jack ass
> 
> if anything writing a feel good law is the "ball less" action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you look up the word "adamant" and then re-read your last post, you'll agree that it is the right word to describe you. You should also go check in a mirror, you may be foaming at the mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it does not describe me you dont have a clue pal what you accusing me of
> 
> it just does not make any sense writing useless laws
> 
> insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting different results
> 
> which is exactly what you are suggesting
Click to expand...

I agree that it's pointless to write useless laws because the ones we have now for sure aren't doing shit. 

So how about we write some that work this time? Are you willing to try that?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> people already are
> 
> however writing a useless anti gun law provides no benefit
> 
> to stopping such thing
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so tired of mass killings, why are you so adamant about not doing anything? Have you simply given up? In which case, get the fuck out of the way so someone with balls can do something...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> who says im adamant about doing nothing
> 
> that is completely incorrect
> 
> however that does not change my mind to have another useless law on the books
> 
> so fuck you shit head i will never surrender my right to honest ownership of firearms
> 
> to appease your sense that writing a useless law is helpful ya jack ass
> 
> if anything writing a feel good law is the "ball less" action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you look up the word "adamant" and then re-read your last post, you'll agree that it is the right word to describe you. You should also go check in a mirror, you may be foaming at the mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it does not describe me you dont have a clue pal what you accusing me of
> 
> it just does not make any sense writing useless laws
> 
> insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting different results
> 
> which is exactly what you are suggesting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's pointless to write useless laws because the ones we have now for sure aren't doing shit.
> 
> So how about we write some that work this time? Are you willing to try that?
Click to expand...


Not if it means banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms


----------



## Taz

jon_berzerk said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> again good luck with that
> 
> --LOL
Click to expand...

I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Won't happen in your lifetime.
Click to expand...

I know, but a future generation that is more evolved and civilized will.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> people already are
> 
> however writing a useless anti gun law provides no benefit
> 
> to stopping such thing
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so tired of mass killings, why are you so adamant about not doing anything? Have you simply given up? In which case, get the fuck out of the way so someone with balls can do something...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> who says im adamant about doing nothing
> 
> that is completely incorrect
> 
> however that does not change my mind to have another useless law on the books
> 
> so fuck you shit head i will never surrender my right to honest ownership of firearms
> 
> to appease your sense that writing a useless law is helpful ya jack ass
> 
> if anything writing a feel good law is the "ball less" action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you look up the word "adamant" and then re-read your last post, you'll agree that it is the right word to describe you. You should also go check in a mirror, you may be foaming at the mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it does not describe me you dont have a clue pal what you accusing me of
> 
> it just does not make any sense writing useless laws
> 
> insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting different results
> 
> which is exactly what you are suggesting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's pointless to write useless laws because the ones we have now for sure aren't doing shit.
> 
> So how about we write some that work this time? Are you willing to try that?
Click to expand...



suggest one


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> again good luck with that
> 
> --LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
Click to expand...


You have to learn something about people

People are the most violent and dangerous animal to ever walk the earth.

And that will never change


----------



## jon_berzerk

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> again good luck with that
> 
> --LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
Click to expand...



unlikely too many states honor the 2nd Amendment to ever ratify such a move


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so tired of mass killings, why are you so adamant about not doing anything? Have you simply given up? In which case, get the fuck out of the way so someone with balls can do something...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who says im adamant about doing nothing
> 
> that is completely incorrect
> 
> however that does not change my mind to have another useless law on the books
> 
> so fuck you shit head i will never surrender my right to honest ownership of firearms
> 
> to appease your sense that writing a useless law is helpful ya jack ass
> 
> if anything writing a feel good law is the "ball less" action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you look up the word "adamant" and then re-read your last post, you'll agree that it is the right word to describe you. You should also go check in a mirror, you may be foaming at the mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it does not describe me you dont have a clue pal what you accusing me of
> 
> it just does not make any sense writing useless laws
> 
> insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting different results
> 
> which is exactly what you are suggesting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's pointless to write useless laws because the ones we have now for sure aren't doing shit.
> 
> So how about we write some that work this time? Are you willing to try that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if it means banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms
Click to expand...

I don't think anyone outside of Matt Damon wants to take away all the guns.


----------



## Taz

jon_berzerk said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so tired of mass killings, why are you so adamant about not doing anything? Have you simply given up? In which case, get the fuck out of the way so someone with balls can do something...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who says im adamant about doing nothing
> 
> that is completely incorrect
> 
> however that does not change my mind to have another useless law on the books
> 
> so fuck you shit head i will never surrender my right to honest ownership of firearms
> 
> to appease your sense that writing a useless law is helpful ya jack ass
> 
> if anything writing a feel good law is the "ball less" action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you look up the word "adamant" and then re-read your last post, you'll agree that it is the right word to describe you. You should also go check in a mirror, you may be foaming at the mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it does not describe me you dont have a clue pal what you accusing me of
> 
> it just does not make any sense writing useless laws
> 
> insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting different results
> 
> which is exactly what you are suggesting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's pointless to write useless laws because the ones we have now for sure aren't doing shit.
> 
> So how about we write some that work this time? Are you willing to try that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> suggest one
Click to expand...

Make it illegal to sell the class of guns that the shooter in Vegas used. There would have been a lot less damage done if he only had a regular style hunting rifle, and maybe a handgun or two. That's one.


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> again good luck with that
> 
> --LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to learn something about people
> 
> People are the most violent and dangerous animal to ever walk the earth.
> 
> And that will never change
Click to expand...

Evolution exists, and I guess I have more faith in the future of humanity than you do.


----------



## Taz

jon_berzerk said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> again good luck with that
> 
> --LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> unlikely too many states honor the 2nd Amendment to ever ratify such a move
Click to expand...

Who knows what the future brings? Maybe people finally get tired of all the gun deaths every year and the mass shootings on a regular basis. They'll realize that they don't have to live like that anymore, plenty of countries already don't.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> who says im adamant about doing nothing
> 
> that is completely incorrect
> 
> however that does not change my mind to have another useless law on the books
> 
> so fuck you shit head i will never surrender my right to honest ownership of firearms
> 
> to appease your sense that writing a useless law is helpful ya jack ass
> 
> if anything writing a feel good law is the "ball less" action
> 
> 
> 
> If you look up the word "adamant" and then re-read your last post, you'll agree that it is the right word to describe you. You should also go check in a mirror, you may be foaming at the mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it does not describe me you dont have a clue pal what you accusing me of
> 
> it just does not make any sense writing useless laws
> 
> insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting different results
> 
> which is exactly what you are suggesting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's pointless to write useless laws because the ones we have now for sure aren't doing shit.
> 
> So how about we write some that work this time? Are you willing to try that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not if it means banning law abiding citizens from owning firearms
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't think anyone outside of Matt Damon wants to take away all the guns.
Click to expand...


No you just want to repeal the entire second amendment as if that isn't the same thing.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> 
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> again good luck with that
> 
> --LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to learn something about people
> 
> People are the most violent and dangerous animal to ever walk the earth.
> 
> And that will never change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution exists, and I guess I have more faith in the future of humanity than you do.
Click to expand...


Yeah we are sooooo much more peaceful now than we ever have been


----------



## jon_berzerk

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> who says im adamant about doing nothing
> 
> that is completely incorrect
> 
> however that does not change my mind to have another useless law on the books
> 
> so fuck you shit head i will never surrender my right to honest ownership of firearms
> 
> to appease your sense that writing a useless law is helpful ya jack ass
> 
> if anything writing a feel good law is the "ball less" action
> 
> 
> 
> If you look up the word "adamant" and then re-read your last post, you'll agree that it is the right word to describe you. You should also go check in a mirror, you may be foaming at the mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it does not describe me you dont have a clue pal what you accusing me of
> 
> it just does not make any sense writing useless laws
> 
> insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting different results
> 
> which is exactly what you are suggesting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's pointless to write useless laws because the ones we have now for sure aren't doing shit.
> 
> So how about we write some that work this time? Are you willing to try that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> suggest one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make it illegal to sell the class of guns that the shooter in Vegas used. There would have been a lot less damage done if he only had a regular style hunting rifle, and maybe a handgun or two. That's one.
Click to expand...



why do you think that a criminal who by nature breaks the law 

would honor not breaking the law using that "class of weapon" 

when they already do not follow gun bans like i Chicago for example 

please demonstrate how that stop such act 

also what do you mean by "class of weapon"


----------



## jon_berzerk

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> 
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> again good luck with that
> 
> --LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> unlikely too many states honor the 2nd Amendment to ever ratify such a move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows what the future brings? Maybe people finally get tired of all the gun deaths every year and the mass shootings on a regular basis. They'll realize that they don't have to live like that anymore, plenty of countries already don't.
Click to expand...


criminals dont care


----------



## Chuz Life

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
Click to expand...


Ok. That takes car if the militia. . .What about the right of the people to keep and bear arms that preceded the Constitution and the 2nd amendment? You gonna revoke that too?

How?

When King George tried it, he got his ass kicked in a revolutionary war.


----------



## Chuz Life

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> people already are
> 
> however writing a useless anti gun law provides no benefit
> 
> to stopping such thing
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so tired of mass killings, why are you so adamant about not doing anything? Have you simply given up? In which case, get the fuck out of the way so someone with balls can do something...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> who says im adamant about doing nothing
> 
> that is completely incorrect
> 
> however that does not change my mind to have another useless law on the books
> 
> so fuck you shit head i will never surrender my right to honest ownership of firearms
> 
> to appease your sense that writing a useless law is helpful ya jack ass
> 
> if anything writing a feel good law is the "ball less" action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you look up the word "adamant" and then re-read your last post, you'll agree that it is the right word to describe you. You should also go check in a mirror, you may be foaming at the mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it does not describe me you dont have a clue pal what you accusing me of
> 
> it just does not make any sense writing useless laws
> 
> insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting different results
> 
> which is exactly what you are suggesting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's pointless to write useless laws because the ones we have now for sure aren't doing shit.
> 
> So how about we write some that work this time? Are you willing to try that?
Click to expand...


Give a fucking example of one that is guaranteed to work. 

Just one.


----------



## Chuz Life

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> 
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> again good luck with that
> 
> --LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to learn something about people
> 
> People are the most violent and dangerous animal to ever walk the earth.
> 
> And that will never change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution exists, and I guess I have more faith in the future of humanity than you do.
Click to expand...


Humanity?!?

(Spit take)

I am willing to bet money that you are a proabort.


----------



## Taz

jon_berzerk said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again good luck with that
> 
> --LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> unlikely too many states honor the 2nd Amendment to ever ratify such a move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows what the future brings? Maybe people finally get tired of all the gun deaths every year and the mass shootings on a regular basis. They'll realize that they don't have to live like that anymore, plenty of countries already don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> criminals dont care
Click to expand...

So because there are criminals out there, you're frozen and won't do anything?


----------



## Taz

Chuz Life said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. That takes car if the militia. . .What about the right of the people to keep and bear arms that preceded the Constitution and the 2nd amendment? You gonna revoke that too?
> 
> How?
> 
> When King George tried it, he got his ass kicked in a revolutionary war.
Click to expand...

You can allow people let's say, 2 hunting rifles and 2 handguns. But it no longer would have to be an all out license to have any and as many guns as you want.


----------



## Taz

Chuz Life said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so tired of mass killings, why are you so adamant about not doing anything? Have you simply given up? In which case, get the fuck out of the way so someone with balls can do something...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> who says im adamant about doing nothing
> 
> that is completely incorrect
> 
> however that does not change my mind to have another useless law on the books
> 
> so fuck you shit head i will never surrender my right to honest ownership of firearms
> 
> to appease your sense that writing a useless law is helpful ya jack ass
> 
> if anything writing a feel good law is the "ball less" action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you look up the word "adamant" and then re-read your last post, you'll agree that it is the right word to describe you. You should also go check in a mirror, you may be foaming at the mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it does not describe me you dont have a clue pal what you accusing me of
> 
> it just does not make any sense writing useless laws
> 
> insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting different results
> 
> which is exactly what you are suggesting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's pointless to write useless laws because the ones we have now for sure aren't doing shit.
> 
> So how about we write some that work this time? Are you willing to try that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give a fucking example of one that is guaranteed to work.
> 
> Just one.
Click to expand...

Stop selling the class of weapons that the Vegas shooter used. There's one.


----------



## Taz

Chuz Life said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again good luck with that
> 
> --LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to learn something about people
> 
> People are the most violent and dangerous animal to ever walk the earth.
> 
> And that will never change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution exists, and I guess I have more faith in the future of humanity than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humanity?!?
> 
> (Spit take)
> 
> I am willing to bet money that you are a proabort.
Click to expand...

No, I am pro-choice, let everyone make up their own mind and not push my own views on them like you're trying to do.


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> again good luck with that
> 
> --LOL
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to learn something about people
> 
> People are the most violent and dangerous animal to ever walk the earth.
> 
> And that will never change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution exists, and I guess I have more faith in the future of humanity than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah we are sooooo much more peaceful now than we ever have been
Click to expand...

Well, at least that you admit that you're a bunch of savages. It's a start.


----------



## Taz

jon_berzerk said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look up the word "adamant" and then re-read your last post, you'll agree that it is the right word to describe you. You should also go check in a mirror, you may be foaming at the mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no it does not describe me you dont have a clue pal what you accusing me of
> 
> it just does not make any sense writing useless laws
> 
> insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting different results
> 
> which is exactly what you are suggesting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's pointless to write useless laws because the ones we have now for sure aren't doing shit.
> 
> So how about we write some that work this time? Are you willing to try that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> suggest one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make it illegal to sell the class of guns that the shooter in Vegas used. There would have been a lot less damage done if he only had a regular style hunting rifle, and maybe a handgun or two. That's one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think that a criminal who by nature breaks the law
> 
> would honor not breaking the law using that "class of weapon"
> 
> when they already do not follow gun bans like i Chicago for example
> 
> please demonstrate how that stop such act
> 
> also what do you mean by "class of weapon"
Click to expand...

If those kinds of weapons (an assault weapon like in Vegas, basically anything outside a legit hunting rifle) are only available to the military, where the fuck are all the coons and beaners going to steal them from?


----------



## Astrostar

52ndStreet said:


> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.


Have you even read the 2nd Amendment?  Or do you not understand the part about "well regulated?"


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> again good luck with that
> 
> --LOL
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to learn something about people
> 
> People are the most violent and dangerous animal to ever walk the earth.
> 
> And that will never change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution exists, and I guess I have more faith in the future of humanity than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah we are sooooo much more peaceful now than we ever have been
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, at least that you admit that you're a bunch of savages. It's a start.
Click to expand...


Oh so you exclude yourself from the human race?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> again good luck with that
> 
> --LOL
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to learn something about people
> 
> People are the most violent and dangerous animal to ever walk the earth.
> 
> And that will never change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution exists, and I guess I have more faith in the future of humanity than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humanity?!?
> 
> (Spit take)
> 
> I am willing to bet money that you are a proabort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am pro-choice, let everyone make up their own mind and not push my own views on them like you're trying to do.
Click to expand...

Unless it comes to gun ownership you mean.  You have no problem pushing your views on that one


----------



## Chuz Life

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> again good luck with that
> 
> --LOL
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to learn something about people
> 
> People are the most violent and dangerous animal to ever walk the earth.
> 
> And that will never change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution exists, and I guess I have more faith in the future of humanity than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humanity?!?
> 
> (Spit take)
> 
> I am willing to bet money that you are a proabort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am pro-choice, let everyone make up their own mind and not push my own views on them like you're trying to do.
Click to expand...


Do you support ANY laws at all against the molestation and killing of children?

I digress. 

Good to know you are "pro choice" and that you won't be forcing any of your views on me when it comes to what kinds of guns I might select for my defense needs.


----------



## Chuz Life

Astrostar said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> Have you even read the 2nd Amendment?  Or do you not understand the part about "well regulated?"
Click to expand...


Before we educate you on the context of a well regulated militia and what it meant when the 2nd was written. . . Just for laughs. .   Without cheating. . . Why don't you tell us what you THINK  it means.


----------



## Chuz Life

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> who says im adamant about doing nothing
> 
> that is completely incorrect
> 
> however that does not change my mind to have another useless law on the books
> 
> so fuck you shit head i will never surrender my right to honest ownership of firearms
> 
> to appease your sense that writing a useless law is helpful ya jack ass
> 
> if anything writing a feel good law is the "ball less" action
> 
> 
> 
> If you look up the word "adamant" and then re-read your last post, you'll agree that it is the right word to describe you. You should also go check in a mirror, you may be foaming at the mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it does not describe me you dont have a clue pal what you accusing me of
> 
> it just does not make any sense writing useless laws
> 
> insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting different results
> 
> which is exactly what you are suggesting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's pointless to write useless laws because the ones we have now for sure aren't doing shit.
> 
> So how about we write some that work this time? Are you willing to try that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give a fucking example of one that is guaranteed to work.
> 
> Just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop selling the class of weapons that the Vegas shooter used. There's one.
Click to expand...



What about the countless.millions of those rifles already out there in the population?


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> again good luck with that
> 
> --LOL
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> unlikely too many states honor the 2nd Amendment to ever ratify such a move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows what the future brings? Maybe people finally get tired of all the gun deaths every year and the mass shootings on a regular basis. They'll realize that they don't have to live like that anymore, plenty of countries already don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> criminals dont care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So because there are criminals out there, you're frozen and won't do anything?
Click to expand...


You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns IOW tailor your law to the .0005% of the population that actually commit murder with guns.


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> i guess i wanna hear just exactly  why criminals will obey such laws
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
Click to expand...



No...the laws work just fine...it is people like you and other left wing democrats who keep letting violent gun criminals out of jail in under 3 years...that is the problem...they get arrested just fine.....


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> yeah some  22 thousand of them
> 
> all wrote for feel good reasons
> 
> sop why write another that is only going after the law abiding
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not what I said. I would overhaul the whole system, but the peeps aren't ready for that yet. Probably sometime in the future when US society is more evolved, and they get tired of all the mass killings.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> people already are
> 
> however writing a useless anti gun law provides no benefit
> 
> to stopping such thing
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you're so tired of mass killings, why are you so adamant about not doing anything? Have you simply given up? In which case, get the fuck out of the way so someone with balls can do something...
Click to expand...



Mass public shootings took 71 lives in 2016......35,000 people died in car accidents....knives took the lives of 1,604 people....so no, mass public shootings are horrible, but they are not the real problem.


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
Click to expand...



And for hitler, pol pot, mao, stalin, lenin, the castro brothers...and all the great mass murderers too....


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> people already are
> 
> however writing a useless anti gun law provides no benefit
> 
> to stopping such thing
> 
> 
> 
> If you're so tired of mass killings, why are you so adamant about not doing anything? Have you simply given up? In which case, get the fuck out of the way so someone with balls can do something...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> who says im adamant about doing nothing
> 
> that is completely incorrect
> 
> however that does not change my mind to have another useless law on the books
> 
> so fuck you shit head i will never surrender my right to honest ownership of firearms
> 
> to appease your sense that writing a useless law is helpful ya jack ass
> 
> if anything writing a feel good law is the "ball less" action
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If you look up the word "adamant" and then re-read your last post, you'll agree that it is the right word to describe you. You should also go check in a mirror, you may be foaming at the mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it does not describe me you dont have a clue pal what you accusing me of
> 
> it just does not make any sense writing useless laws
> 
> insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting different results
> 
> which is exactly what you are suggesting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's pointless to write useless laws because the ones we have now for sure aren't doing shit.
> 
> So how about we write some that work this time? Are you willing to try that?
Click to expand...



The laws we have work just fine....we can arrest anyone who commits a crime with a gun, we can arrest felons caught with a gun......the problem, again, is that people like you keep letting them back out....


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> who says im adamant about doing nothing
> 
> that is completely incorrect
> 
> however that does not change my mind to have another useless law on the books
> 
> so fuck you shit head i will never surrender my right to honest ownership of firearms
> 
> to appease your sense that writing a useless law is helpful ya jack ass
> 
> if anything writing a feel good law is the "ball less" action
> 
> 
> 
> If you look up the word "adamant" and then re-read your last post, you'll agree that it is the right word to describe you. You should also go check in a mirror, you may be foaming at the mouth.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> no it does not describe me you dont have a clue pal what you accusing me of
> 
> it just does not make any sense writing useless laws
> 
> insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting different results
> 
> which is exactly what you are suggesting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's pointless to write useless laws because the ones we have now for sure aren't doing shit.
> 
> So how about we write some that work this time? Are you willing to try that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> suggest one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make it illegal to sell the class of guns that the shooter in Vegas used. There would have been a lot less damage done if he only had a regular style hunting rifle, and maybe a handgun or two. That's one.
Click to expand...



There are 16 million of them in private hands....2 were used illegal to commit murder....there is no reason to disarm all of those people for the crimes of one person.

No....a hunting rifle would have used a bigger bullet, and he would have been able to shoot all of his rounds into the crowd, the bump fire stock made him miss...a lot......saving lives.

And the 2nd Amendment doesn't cover, "I don't like that people can own those guns."  It defines our Right to self defense...including Civilian Self Defense rifles like the AR-15...the same rifle the police use.....


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. That takes car if the militia. . .What about the right of the people to keep and bear arms that preceded the Constitution and the 2nd amendment? You gonna revoke that too?
> 
> How?
> 
> When King George tried it, he got his ass kicked in a revolutionary war.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You can allow people let's say, 2 hunting rifles and 2 handguns. But it no longer would have to be an all out license to have any and as many guns as you want.
Click to expand...



As soon as you apply the same limit to books.  And to voting.....you get to vote for two candidates....that's it...

Rights don't have those arbitrary limits....and when someone want to take guns away, that is the time you stop listening to that person......


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> no it does not describe me you dont have a clue pal what you accusing me of
> 
> it just does not make any sense writing useless laws
> 
> insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting different results
> 
> which is exactly what you are suggesting
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's pointless to write useless laws because the ones we have now for sure aren't doing shit.
> 
> So how about we write some that work this time? Are you willing to try that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> suggest one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make it illegal to sell the class of guns that the shooter in Vegas used. There would have been a lot less damage done if he only had a regular style hunting rifle, and maybe a handgun or two. That's one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think that a criminal who by nature breaks the law
> 
> would honor not breaking the law using that "class of weapon"
> 
> when they already do not follow gun bans like i Chicago for example
> 
> please demonstrate how that stop such act
> 
> also what do you mean by "class of weapon"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If those kinds of weapons (an assault weapon like in Vegas, basically anything outside a legit hunting rifle) are only available to the military, where the fuck are all the coons and beaners going to steal them from?
Click to expand...



The AR-15 is not a military weapon dumb ass.  it is a civilian self defense rifle.  And now you lost my interest...


----------



## jon_berzerk

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> again good luck with that
> 
> --LOL
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> unlikely too many states honor the 2nd Amendment to ever ratify such a move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows what the future brings? Maybe people finally get tired of all the gun deaths every year and the mass shootings on a regular basis. They'll realize that they don't have to live like that anymore, plenty of countries already don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> criminals dont care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So because there are criminals out there, you're frozen and won't do anything?
Click to expand...



why would i punish the honest law abiding because of criminals 

you dont make any sense in doing so


----------



## 2aguy

jon_berzerk said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unlikely too many states honor the 2nd Amendment to ever ratify such a move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows what the future brings? Maybe people finally get tired of all the gun deaths every year and the mass shootings on a regular basis. They'll realize that they don't have to live like that anymore, plenty of countries already don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> criminals dont care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So because there are criminals out there, you're frozen and won't do anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would i punish the honest law abiding because of criminals
> 
> you dont make any sense in doing so
Click to expand...



It isn't about sense.....this guy is a Troll.....

As to the actual anti gunners...they hate guns ,they hate people...and they really hate the people who own guns...


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to learn something about people
> 
> People are the most violent and dangerous animal to ever walk the earth.
> 
> And that will never change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution exists, and I guess I have more faith in the future of humanity than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah we are sooooo much more peaceful now than we ever have been
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, at least that you admit that you're a bunch of savages. It's a start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so you exclude yourself from the human race?
Click to expand...

I'll exclude myself from whatever backwards race you belong to. Is that good enough?


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to learn something about people
> 
> People are the most violent and dangerous animal to ever walk the earth.
> 
> And that will never change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution exists, and I guess I have more faith in the future of humanity than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humanity?!?
> 
> (Spit take)
> 
> I am willing to bet money that you are a proabort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am pro-choice, let everyone make up their own mind and not push my own views on them like you're trying to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless it comes to gun ownership you mean.  You have no problem pushing your views on that one
Click to expand...

Apples and Oranges. Too many unstable people have too many assault-style weapons. Like you.


----------



## Taz

Chuz Life said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to learn something about people
> 
> People are the most violent and dangerous animal to ever walk the earth.
> 
> And that will never change
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Evolution exists, and I guess I have more faith in the future of humanity than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humanity?!?
> 
> (Spit take)
> 
> I am willing to bet money that you are a proabort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am pro-choice, let everyone make up their own mind and not push my own views on them like you're trying to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Do you support ANY laws at all against the molestation and killing of children?
> 
> I digress.
> 
> Good to know you are "pro choice" and that you won't be forcing any of your views on me when it comes to what kinds of guns I might select for my defense needs.
Click to expand...

Apples and oranges. Too many unstable people have too many high powered guns. It's totally unnecessary.


----------



## Taz

Chuz Life said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you look up the word "adamant" and then re-read your last post, you'll agree that it is the right word to describe you. You should also go check in a mirror, you may be foaming at the mouth.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> no it does not describe me you dont have a clue pal what you accusing me of
> 
> it just does not make any sense writing useless laws
> 
> insanity is doing the same things over and over expecting different results
> 
> which is exactly what you are suggesting
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I agree that it's pointless to write useless laws because the ones we have now for sure aren't doing shit.
> 
> So how about we write some that work this time? Are you willing to try that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give a fucking example of one that is guaranteed to work.
> 
> Just one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Stop selling the class of weapons that the Vegas shooter used. There's one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What about the countless.millions of those rifles already out there in the population?
Click to expand...

If the population agrees not to sell those kinds of weapons, then they should be ok with either a buy back program or sealing their gun barrels with a blocking agent, or something like that, if you want to be a collector. As for the gang bangers, sell bullets with serial numbers on them, and control their sale a lot better. Maybe squeeze the supply of bullets, by restricting the number people can buy per year. Maybe redesign the firing pin so that new guns no longer shoot old bullets (if that's possible). That's just some things that can be tried.


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unlikely too many states honor the 2nd Amendment to ever ratify such a move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows what the future brings? Maybe people finally get tired of all the gun deaths every year and the mass shootings on a regular basis. They'll realize that they don't have to live like that anymore, plenty of countries already don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> criminals dont care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So because there are criminals out there, you're frozen and won't do anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns IOW tailor your law to the .0005% of the population that actually commit murder with guns.
Click to expand...

"law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns" you mean like the guy in Vegas?


----------



## Taz

2aguy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Criminals don't obey murders laws either, should we also not have any of those?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> No...the laws work just fine...it is people like you and other left wing democrats who keep letting violent gun criminals out of jail in under 3 years...that is the problem...they get arrested just fine.....
Click to expand...

A guy shoots 600 people from a window and everything is fine?


----------



## Taz

2aguy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I agree that it's pointless to write useless laws because the ones we have now for sure aren't doing shit.
> 
> So how about we write some that work this time? Are you willing to try that?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> suggest one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Make it illegal to sell the class of guns that the shooter in Vegas used. There would have been a lot less damage done if he only had a regular style hunting rifle, and maybe a handgun or two. That's one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why do you think that a criminal who by nature breaks the law
> 
> would honor not breaking the law using that "class of weapon"
> 
> when they already do not follow gun bans like i Chicago for example
> 
> please demonstrate how that stop such act
> 
> also what do you mean by "class of weapon"
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If those kinds of weapons (an assault weapon like in Vegas, basically anything outside a legit hunting rifle) are only available to the military, where the fuck are all the coons and beaners going to steal them from?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> The AR-15 is not a military weapon dumb ass.  it is a civilian self defense rifle.  And now you lost my interest...
Click to expand...

You obviously didn't understand what I said. Not the first time. You're too busy being angry.


----------



## Taz

jon_berzerk said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I know, it'll take a future generation that is more evolved and civilized, there are way too many uncouth bumpkins in the US right now. And they all have guns, lol.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> unlikely too many states honor the 2nd Amendment to ever ratify such a move
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who knows what the future brings? Maybe people finally get tired of all the gun deaths every year and the mass shootings on a regular basis. They'll realize that they don't have to live like that anymore, plenty of countries already don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> criminals dont care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So because there are criminals out there, you're frozen and won't do anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would i punish the honest law abiding because of criminals
> 
> you dont make any sense in doing so
Click to expand...

How punish? I don't get it. Where did I say that?


----------



## Taz

2aguy said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> unlikely too many states honor the 2nd Amendment to ever ratify such a move
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows what the future brings? Maybe people finally get tired of all the gun deaths every year and the mass shootings on a regular basis. They'll realize that they don't have to live like that anymore, plenty of countries already don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> criminals dont care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So because there are criminals out there, you're frozen and won't do anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would i punish the honest law abiding because of criminals
> 
> you dont make any sense in doing so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't about sense.....this guy is a Troll.....
> 
> As to the actual anti gunners...they hate guns ,they hate people...and they really hate the people who own guns...
Click to expand...

You need help.


----------



## jon_berzerk

2aguy said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> unlikely too many states honor the 2nd Amendment to ever ratify such a move
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows what the future brings? Maybe people finally get tired of all the gun deaths every year and the mass shootings on a regular basis. They'll realize that they don't have to live like that anymore, plenty of countries already don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> criminals dont care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So because there are criminals out there, you're frozen and won't do anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would i punish the honest law abiding because of criminals
> 
> you dont make any sense in doing so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> It isn't about sense.....this guy is a Troll.....
> 
> As to the actual anti gunners...they hate guns ,they hate people...and they really hate the people who own guns...
Click to expand...


Yes that is true


----------



## jon_berzerk

Taz said:


> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> unlikely too many states honor the 2nd Amendment to ever ratify such a move
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows what the future brings? Maybe people finally get tired of all the gun deaths every year and the mass shootings on a regular basis. They'll realize that they don't have to live like that anymore, plenty of countries already don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> criminals dont care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So because there are criminals out there, you're frozen and won't do anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would i punish the honest law abiding because of criminals
> 
> you dont make any sense in doing so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How punish? I don't get it. Where did I say that?
Click to expand...


how do you think


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to learn something about people
> 
> People are the most violent and dangerous animal to ever walk the earth.
> 
> And that will never change
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution exists, and I guess I have more faith in the future of humanity than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Yeah we are sooooo much more peaceful now than we ever have been
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well, at least that you admit that you're a bunch of savages. It's a start.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Oh so you exclude yourself from the human race?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'll exclude myself from whatever backwards race you belong to. Is that good enough?
Click to expand...


Thank you for admitting you live in a fantasy world of your own creation


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> unlikely too many states honor the 2nd Amendment to ever ratify such a move
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows what the future brings? Maybe people finally get tired of all the gun deaths every year and the mass shootings on a regular basis. They'll realize that they don't have to live like that anymore, plenty of countries already don't.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> criminals dont care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So because there are criminals out there, you're frozen and won't do anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns IOW tailor your law to the .0005% of the population that actually commit murder with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns" you mean like the guy in Vegas?
Click to expand...


Here we go again.

You cannot blame people for the illegal acts of others.

Unless of course you want to do it across the board.

So you might have not raped a woman yet but we might as well put you on a sex offender list now.


----------



## Taz

jon_berzerk said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows what the future brings? Maybe people finally get tired of all the gun deaths every year and the mass shootings on a regular basis. They'll realize that they don't have to live like that anymore, plenty of countries already don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> criminals dont care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So because there are criminals out there, you're frozen and won't do anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> why would i punish the honest law abiding because of criminals
> 
> you dont make any sense in doing so
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How punish? I don't get it. Where did I say that?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> how do you think
Click to expand...

With my brain?


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Who knows what the future brings? Maybe people finally get tired of all the gun deaths every year and the mass shootings on a regular basis. They'll realize that they don't have to live like that anymore, plenty of countries already don't.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> criminals dont care
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So because there are criminals out there, you're frozen and won't do anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns IOW tailor your law to the .0005% of the population that actually commit murder with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns" you mean like the guy in Vegas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go again.
> 
> You cannot blame people for the illegal acts of others.
> 
> Unless of course you want to do it across the board.
> 
> So you might have not raped a woman yet but we might as well put you on a sex offender list now.
Click to expand...

You're already on a list as a gun owner. 

If the class of guns used in Vegas were not sold, what would he have used and how many less people would have been harmed in the same amount of time?


----------



## danielpalos

draft the unorganized militia into wellness of regulation until gun incidents go down to more acceptable levels.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> criminals dont care
> 
> 
> 
> So because there are criminals out there, you're frozen and won't do anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns IOW tailor your law to the .0005% of the population that actually commit murder with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns" you mean like the guy in Vegas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go again.
> 
> You cannot blame people for the illegal acts of others.
> 
> Unless of course you want to do it across the board.
> 
> So you might have not raped a woman yet but we might as well put you on a sex offender list now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're already on a list as a gun owner.
> 
> If the class of guns used in Vegas were not sold, what would he have used and how many less people would have been harmed in the same amount of time?
Click to expand...


If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas.

There is no reason to restrict people who have not broken any laws from owning semiautomatic firearms.

That will remain true until the day you can reliably and accurately predict the future.


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So because there are criminals out there, you're frozen and won't do anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns IOW tailor your law to the .0005% of the population that actually commit murder with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns" you mean like the guy in Vegas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go again.
> 
> You cannot blame people for the illegal acts of others.
> 
> Unless of course you want to do it across the board.
> 
> So you might have not raped a woman yet but we might as well put you on a sex offender list now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're already on a list as a gun owner.
> 
> If the class of guns used in Vegas were not sold, what would he have used and how many less people would have been harmed in the same amount of time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas.
> 
> There is no reason to restrict people who have not broken any laws from owning semiautomatic firearms.
> 
> That will remain true until the day you can reliably and accurately predict the future.
Click to expand...

I asked "If the class of guns used in Vegas were not sold, what would he have used and how many less people would have been harmed in the same amount of time?" And you couldn't answer. I believe that that means that I just won!


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns IOW tailor your law to the .0005% of the population that actually commit murder with guns.
> 
> 
> 
> "law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns" you mean like the guy in Vegas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go again.
> 
> You cannot blame people for the illegal acts of others.
> 
> Unless of course you want to do it across the board.
> 
> So you might have not raped a woman yet but we might as well put you on a sex offender list now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're already on a list as a gun owner.
> 
> If the class of guns used in Vegas were not sold, what would he have used and how many less people would have been harmed in the same amount of time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If ifs and buts were candy and nuts we'd all have a merry Christmas.
> 
> There is no reason to restrict people who have not broken any laws from owning semiautomatic firearms.
> 
> That will remain true until the day you can reliably and accurately predict the future.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I asked "If the class of guns used in Vegas were not sold, what would he have used and how many less people would have been harmed in the same amount of time?" And you couldn't answer. I believe that that means that I just won!
Click to expand...


That question cannot be answered.  He might not have chosen guns at all.  Maybe he would have bought an F 350 with a supercharged V8 Diesel engine and a big ass Fisher Plow and have ended up killing even more people.

If that was the case would you be calling for banning pick up trucks and plows?


----------



## Chuz Life

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to learn something about people
> 
> People are the most violent and dangerous animal to ever walk the earth.
> 
> And that will never change
> 
> 
> 
> Evolution exists, and I guess I have more faith in the future of humanity than you do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Humanity?!?
> 
> (Spit take)
> 
> I am willing to bet money that you are a proabort.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am pro-choice, let everyone make up their own mind and not push my own views on them like you're trying to do.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Unless it comes to gun ownership you mean.  You have no problem pushing your views on that one
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Apples and Oranges. Too many unstable people have too many assault-style weapons. Like you.
Click to expand...


Lol. 

You are obviously frustrated and projecting your own instab8lity on to others. What's the difference between an "assault style" weapon and a "defense style" weapon? Since you are such an expert and all.


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jon_berzerk said:
> 
> 
> 
> criminals dont care
> 
> 
> 
> So because there are criminals out there, you're frozen and won't do anything?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns IOW tailor your law to the .0005% of the population that actually commit murder with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns" you mean like the guy in Vegas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go again.
> 
> You cannot blame people for the illegal acts of others.
> 
> Unless of course you want to do it across the board.
> 
> So you might have not raped a woman yet but we might as well put you on a sex offender list now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're already on a list as a gun owner.
> 
> If the class of guns used in Vegas were not sold, what would he have used and how many less people would have been harmed in the same amount of time?
Click to expand...



He would have used shotguns and pistols at a different location, and killed as many people......or he would have used a rental truck and killed more people.....


----------



## Taz

2aguy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So because there are criminals out there, you're frozen and won't do anything?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns IOW tailor your law to the .0005% of the population that actually commit murder with guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns" you mean like the guy in Vegas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go again.
> 
> You cannot blame people for the illegal acts of others.
> 
> Unless of course you want to do it across the board.
> 
> So you might have not raped a woman yet but we might as well put you on a sex offender list now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're already on a list as a gun owner.
> 
> If the class of guns used in Vegas were not sold, what would he have used and how many less people would have been harmed in the same amount of time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He would have used shotguns and pistols at a different location, and killed as many people......or he would have used a rental truck and killed more people.....
Click to expand...

So you admit that he couldn't have killed and injured close to 600 people from his original window. WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!! Good for you.


----------



## Chuz Life

Taz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns IOW tailor your law to the .0005% of the population that actually commit murder with guns.
> 
> 
> 
> "law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns" you mean like the guy in Vegas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go again.
> 
> You cannot blame people for the illegal acts of others.
> 
> Unless of course you want to do it across the board.
> 
> So you might have not raped a woman yet but we might as well put you on a sex offender list now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're already on a list as a gun owner.
> 
> If the class of guns used in Vegas were not sold, what would he have used and how many less people would have been harmed in the same amount of time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He would have used shotguns and pistols at a different location, and killed as many people......or he would have used a rental truck and killed more people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that he couldn't have killed and injured close to 600 people from his original window. WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!! Good for you.
Click to expand...


Ok. Ban them and no one can ever buy one again. . . 

Errr...

.... ummm

Legally, that is.


----------



## jon_berzerk

Chuz Life said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns" you mean like the guy in Vegas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go again.
> 
> You cannot blame people for the illegal acts of others.
> 
> Unless of course you want to do it across the board.
> 
> So you might have not raped a woman yet but we might as well put you on a sex offender list now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're already on a list as a gun owner.
> 
> If the class of guns used in Vegas were not sold, what would he have used and how many less people would have been harmed in the same amount of time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He would have used shotguns and pistols at a different location, and killed as many people......or he would have used a rental truck and killed more people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that he couldn't have killed and injured close to 600 people from his original window. WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!! Good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Ok. Ban them and no one can ever buy one again. . .
> 
> Errr...
> 
> .... ummm
> 
> Legally, that is.
Click to expand...



never get that through a leftards head 

--LOL


----------



## 2aguy

Taz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> You can do whatever you want as long as it doesn't interfere with law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns IOW tailor your law to the .0005% of the population that actually commit murder with guns.
> 
> 
> 
> "law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns" you mean like the guy in Vegas?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Here we go again.
> 
> You cannot blame people for the illegal acts of others.
> 
> Unless of course you want to do it across the board.
> 
> So you might have not raped a woman yet but we might as well put you on a sex offender list now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're already on a list as a gun owner.
> 
> If the class of guns used in Vegas were not sold, what would he have used and how many less people would have been harmed in the same amount of time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He would have used shotguns and pistols at a different location, and killed as many people......or he would have used a rental truck and killed more people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that he couldn't have killed and injured close to 600 people from his original window. WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!! Good for you.
Click to expand...


No dip shit.....you asked what he would have used...and I told you...he would have killed just as many people with revolvers and shotguns...which is why we don't trust assholes like you because you want to ban those too....


----------



## Taz

2aguy said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> "law abiding people who will never commit murder with their guns" you mean like the guy in Vegas?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go again.
> 
> You cannot blame people for the illegal acts of others.
> 
> Unless of course you want to do it across the board.
> 
> So you might have not raped a woman yet but we might as well put you on a sex offender list now.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're already on a list as a gun owner.
> 
> If the class of guns used in Vegas were not sold, what would he have used and how many less people would have been harmed in the same amount of time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He would have used shotguns and pistols at a different location, and killed as many people......or he would have used a rental truck and killed more people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that he couldn't have killed and injured close to 600 people from his original window. WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!! Good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dip shit.....you asked what he would have used...and I told you...he would have killed just as many people with revolvers and shotguns...which is why we don't trust assholes like you because you want to ban those too....
Click to expand...

There is NO FUCKING WAY that the guy gets off as many shots in the same amount of time from the same window with just a shotgun and a hand gun. Even you acknowledge that.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here we go again.
> 
> You cannot blame people for the illegal acts of others.
> 
> Unless of course you want to do it across the board.
> 
> So you might have not raped a woman yet but we might as well put you on a sex offender list now.
> 
> 
> 
> You're already on a list as a gun owner.
> 
> If the class of guns used in Vegas were not sold, what would he have used and how many less people would have been harmed in the same amount of time?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> He would have used shotguns and pistols at a different location, and killed as many people......or he would have used a rental truck and killed more people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that he couldn't have killed and injured close to 600 people from his original window. WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!! Good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dip shit.....you asked what he would have used...and I told you...he would have killed just as many people with revolvers and shotguns...which is why we don't trust assholes like you because you want to ban those too....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is NO FUCKING WAY that the guy gets off as many shots in the same amount of time from the same window with just a shotgun and a hand gun. Even you acknowledge that.
Click to expand...

You never said he had to do it from a hotel room
  all you said was how could he kill that many people if he didn't have a semiautomatic rifle

and you have had many answers to that question already


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're already on a list as a gun owner.
> 
> If the class of guns used in Vegas were not sold, what would he have used and how many less people would have been harmed in the same amount of time?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> He would have used shotguns and pistols at a different location, and killed as many people......or he would have used a rental truck and killed more people.....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that he couldn't have killed and injured close to 600 people from his original window. WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!! Good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dip shit.....you asked what he would have used...and I told you...he would have killed just as many people with revolvers and shotguns...which is why we don't trust assholes like you because you want to ban those too....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is NO FUCKING WAY that the guy gets off as many shots in the same amount of time from the same window with just a shotgun and a hand gun. Even you acknowledge that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never said he had to do it from a hotel room
> all you said was how could he kill that many people if he didn't have a semiautomatic rifle
> 
> and you have had many answers to that question already
Click to expand...

So, in the same amount of time, can the shooter get off as many rounds with what he used as opposed to a shotgun/handgun combo? The honest answer is no.


----------



## Skull Pilot

OK move the goal posts.

This is your original question


Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> He would have used shotguns and pistols at a different location, and killed as many people......or he would have used a rental truck and killed more people.....
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that he couldn't have killed and injured close to 600 people from his original window. WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!! Good for you.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No dip shit.....you asked what he would have used...and I told you...he would have killed just as many people with revolvers and shotguns...which is why we don't trust assholes like you because you want to ban those too....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is NO FUCKING WAY that the guy gets off as many shots in the same amount of time from the same window with just a shotgun and a hand gun. Even you acknowledge that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never said he had to do it from a hotel room
> all you said was how could he kill that many people if he didn't have a semiautomatic rifle
> 
> and you have had many answers to that question already
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in the same amount of time, can the shooter get off as many rounds with what he used as opposed to a shotgun/handgun combo? The honest answer is no.
Click to expand...



_If the class of guns used in Vegas were not sold, what would he have used and how many less people would have been harmed in the same amount of time?_

And as I answered

He might not have chosen guns at all. Maybe he would have bought an F 350 with a supercharged V8 Diesel engine and a big ass Fisher Plow and have ended up killing even more people.


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> OK move the goal posts.
> 
> This is your original question
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you admit that he couldn't have killed and injured close to 600 people from his original window. WE HAVE A WINNER!!!!!!! Good for you.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No dip shit.....you asked what he would have used...and I told you...he would have killed just as many people with revolvers and shotguns...which is why we don't trust assholes like you because you want to ban those too....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> There is NO FUCKING WAY that the guy gets off as many shots in the same amount of time from the same window with just a shotgun and a hand gun. Even you acknowledge that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never said he had to do it from a hotel room
> all you said was how could he kill that many people if he didn't have a semiautomatic rifle
> 
> and you have had many answers to that question already
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in the same amount of time, can the shooter get off as many rounds with what he used as opposed to a shotgun/handgun combo? The honest answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _If the class of guns used in Vegas were not sold, what would he have used and how many less people would have been harmed in the same amount of time?_
> 
> And as I answered
> 
> He might not have chosen guns at all. Maybe he would have bought an F 350 with a supercharged V8 Diesel engine and a big ass Fisher Plow and have ended up killing even more people.
Click to expand...

So you admit that if those guns were outlawed, that he's not getting off as many rounds with any another weapon. Thanks for clearing that up.


----------



## 52ndStreet

Assault rifle ban is unconstitutional.Must be overturned.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> OK move the goal posts.
> 
> This is your original question
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 2aguy said:
> 
> 
> 
> No dip shit.....you asked what he would have used...and I told you...he would have killed just as many people with revolvers and shotguns...which is why we don't trust assholes like you because you want to ban those too....
> 
> 
> 
> There is NO FUCKING WAY that the guy gets off as many shots in the same amount of time from the same window with just a shotgun and a hand gun. Even you acknowledge that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You never said he had to do it from a hotel room
> all you said was how could he kill that many people if he didn't have a semiautomatic rifle
> 
> and you have had many answers to that question already
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So, in the same amount of time, can the shooter get off as many rounds with what he used as opposed to a shotgun/handgun combo? The honest answer is no.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> _If the class of guns used in Vegas were not sold, what would he have used and how many less people would have been harmed in the same amount of time?_
> 
> And as I answered
> 
> He might not have chosen guns at all. Maybe he would have bought an F 350 with a supercharged V8 Diesel engine and a big ass Fisher Plow and have ended up killing even more people.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So you admit that if those guns were outlawed, that he's not getting off as many rounds with any another weapon. Thanks for clearing that up.
Click to expand...


That wasn't your question.

And I really don't care because even if you got your control freak wish and could somehow make every gun in the country vanish he still could have wreaked just as much havoc and destruction by some other means


----------



## Crixus

Taz said:


> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like YOU have.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
Click to expand...




Then leave. There are thousands waiting in a big line as well as making extreamly dangerous trips who would take your place in this “uncivil” society.


----------



## Taz

Crixus said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Looks like YOU have.
> 
> 
> 
> Very well.
> 
> I accept regular mass shootings.
> 
> In response, I demand that we have open-carry, equal firepower to defend ourselves.  Machine guns for all.
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Then leave. There are thousands waiting in a big line as well as making extreamly dangerous trips who would take your place in this “uncivil” society.
Click to expand...

Even if I leave, it won't change that the US has lost its way as a society.


----------



## danielpalos

Chuz Life said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that I  disagree with that. . . How would a law like that keep the guns out of the hands of criminals? That's what Taz  claims we need to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second part applies, to advance the Cause of the first part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Playing devils advocate here. . .  what is in that law to keep any one or group of "militia members" from going rogue and from using their guns in a criminal act?
Click to expand...

Wellness of regulation.  Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  Only well regulated militia are authorized, their own colors, standards, guidons and banners.

Everybody should know the pledge of allegiance.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that I  disagree with that. . . How would a law like that keep the guns out of the hands of criminals? That's what Taz  claims we need to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second part applies, to advance the Cause of the first part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Playing devils advocate here. . .  what is in that law to keep any one or group of "militia members" from going rogue and from using their guns in a criminal act?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wellness of regulation.  Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  Only well regulated militia are authorized, their own colors, standards, guidons and banners.
> 
> Everybody should know the pledge of allegiance.
Click to expand...


Troll post


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I  disagree with that. . . How would a law like that keep the guns out of the hands of criminals? That's what Taz  claims we need to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second part applies, to advance the Cause of the first part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Playing devils advocate here. . .  what is in that law to keep any one or group of "militia members" from going rogue and from using their guns in a criminal act?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wellness of regulation.  Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  Only well regulated militia are authorized, their own colors, standards, guidons and banners.
> 
> Everybody should know the pledge of allegiance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll post
Click to expand...

dear, You being clueless and Causeless, does not mean I am a troll.


----------



## Chuz Life

danielpalos said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not that I  disagree with that. . . How would a law like that keep the guns out of the hands of criminals? That's what Taz  claims we need to have.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Second part applies, to advance the Cause of the first part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Playing devils advocate here. . .  what is in that law to keep any one or group of "militia members" from going rogue and from using their guns in a criminal act?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wellness of regulation.  Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  Only well regulated militia are authorized, their own colors, standards, guidons and banners.
> 
> Everybody should know the pledge of allegiance.
Click to expand...


Lol. 

Okeee dokie.


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not that I  disagree with that. . . How would a law like that keep the guns out of the hands of criminals? That's what Taz  claims we need to have.
> 
> 
> 
> The Second part applies, to advance the Cause of the first part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Playing devils advocate here. . .  what is in that law to keep any one or group of "militia members" from going rogue and from using their guns in a criminal act?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wellness of regulation.  Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  Only well regulated militia are authorized, their own colors, standards, guidons and banners.
> 
> Everybody should know the pledge of allegiance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, You being clueless and Causeless, does not mean I am a troll.
Click to expand...


You making troll post means you are a troll.


----------



## Chuz Life

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> So you agree that laws can't prevent crimes. That's good.
> 
> What do you suppose the purpose of a law is then?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
Click to expand...


Well that would take away the right to have a militia. 

What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?


----------



## Taz

Chuz Life said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> So why are you bitching and fighting against the lack of abortion laws if laws don't work?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that would take away the right to have a militia.
> 
> What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?
Click to expand...

You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.


----------



## Chuz Life

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that would take away the right to have a militia.
> 
> What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
Click to expand...


That doesn't answer the question. Dumbass.


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second part applies, to advance the Cause of the first part.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Playing devils advocate here. . .  what is in that law to keep any one or group of "militia members" from going rogue and from using their guns in a criminal act?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wellness of regulation.  Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  Only well regulated militia are authorized, their own colors, standards, guidons and banners.
> 
> Everybody should know the pledge of allegiance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, You being clueless and Causeless, does not mean I am a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You making troll post means you are a troll.
Click to expand...

You are a troll post; projecting much, right winger.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Playing devils advocate here. . .  what is in that law to keep any one or group of "militia members" from going rogue and from using their guns in a criminal act?
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation.  Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  Only well regulated militia are authorized, their own colors, standards, guidons and banners.
> 
> Everybody should know the pledge of allegiance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, You being clueless and Causeless, does not mean I am a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You making troll post means you are a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a troll post; projecting much, right winger.
Click to expand...

 Projecting?"  Surely you jest.  I only observed that you made a troll post.


----------



## SSGT Bags

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that would take away the right to have a militia.
> 
> What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
Click to expand...

Depends on your definition of militia!


----------



## Taz

Chuz Life said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that would take away the right to have a militia.
> 
> What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't answer the question. Dumbass.
Click to expand...

I've said it before, I have no problem with citizens owning hunting guns, or simple hand guns for home defense...

Dumbass.


----------



## Humorme

SSGT Bags said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that would take away the right to have a militia.
> 
> What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on your definition of militia!
Click to expand...


*Thomas Jefferson*: 
“_On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_.”

Let's do that:


*Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts:* “_Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins_.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)

*Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts:* “_What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty_.” Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).

*Alexander Hamilton:* “…_that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms_.” (Federalist Paper #29)

*Alexander Hamilton:* “_Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped.” (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}” There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery)."_ (Id)

*Alexander Hamilton:* “_The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped_” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2

*Patrick Henry:* “_The people have a right to keep and bear arms_.” (Elliott, Debates at 185)

*Patrick Henry:* “_Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands_?", 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.

*Patrick Henry:* “_The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

*Thomas Jefferson: *“_And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants_.”, letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.

*Thomas Jefferson* In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “_Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man_.”

To the liberals, *George Washington* warned:

"_But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed_."

Those trying to reinvent the wheel on this issue. are trying to destroy America.

"_Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined_."   *Patrick Henry*, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

The meaning of the militia was defined by the founding fathers as was the intent of guaranteeing (NOT GRANTING) the Right to keep and bear Arms.


----------



## SSGT Bags

Humorme said:


> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> 
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that would take away the right to have a militia.
> 
> What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on your definition of militia!
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson*:
> “_On every question of construction (of the Constitution) let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit of the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed_.”
> 
> Let's do that:
> 
> 
> *Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts:* “_Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins_.” (spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.)
> 
> *Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts:* “_What, sir, is the use of a militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty_.” Rep. of Massachusetts, I Annals of Congress at 750 (August 17, 1789).
> 
> *Alexander Hamilton:* “…_that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms_.” (Federalist Paper #29)
> 
> *Alexander Hamilton:* “_Little more can be aimed at with respect to the people at large than to have them properly armed and equipped.” (Id) {responding to the claim that the militia itself could threaten liberty}” There is something so far-fetched, and so extravagant in the idea of danger of liberty from the militia that one is at a loss whether to treat it with gravity or raillery (mockery)."_ (Id)
> 
> *Alexander Hamilton:* “_The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped_” – Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No.2
> 
> *Patrick Henry:* “_The people have a right to keep and bear arms_.” (Elliott, Debates at 185)
> 
> *Patrick Henry:* “_Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defense? Where is the difference between having our arms in our possession and under our own direction, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defense be the real object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands_?", 3 Elliot Debates 168-169.
> 
> *Patrick Henry:* “_The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_.” 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson: *“_And what country can preserve its liberties, if its rulers are not warned from time to time, that this people preserve the spirit of resistance? Let them take arms… The tree of Liberty must be refreshed from time to time, with the blood of patriots and tyrants_.”, letter to William S. Smith, 1787, in S. Padover (Ed.), Jefferson, On Democracy (1939), p. 20.
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson* In his Commonplace Book, Jefferson quotes Cesare Beccaria from his seminal work, On Crimes and Punishment: “_Laws that forbid the carrying of arms… disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes… Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man_.”
> 
> To the liberals, *George Washington* warned:
> 
> "_But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed_."
> 
> Those trying to reinvent the wheel on this issue. are trying to destroy America.
> 
> "_Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined_."   *Patrick Henry*, speech in the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
> 
> The meaning of the militia was defined by the founding fathers as was the intent of guaranteeing (NOT GRANTING) the Right to keep and bear Arms.
Click to expand...

Well sorta blows holes all over the lefties position!


----------



## Chuz Life

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> 
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that would take away the right to have a militia.
> 
> What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That doesn't answer the question. Dumbass.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it before, I have no problem with citizens owning hunting guns, or simple hand guns for home defense...
> 
> Dumbass.
Click to expand...


It wouldn't matter if you did.


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Playing devils advocate here. . .  what is in that law to keep any one or group of "militia members" from going rogue and from using their guns in a criminal act?
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation.  Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  Only well regulated militia are authorized, their own colors, standards, guidons and banners.
> 
> Everybody should know the pledge of allegiance.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Troll post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, You being clueless and Causeless, does not mean I am a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You making troll post means you are a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a troll post; projecting much, right winger.
Click to expand...


Nope, not projecting and not a right winger.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> I asked you what the purpose of a law is.
> 
> To know if a law "works" or not, you have to first know what the purpose for that law is. Don't you?
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that would take away the right to have a militia.
> 
> What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
Click to expand...

The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.

I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property


----------



## MaryL

52ndStreet said:


> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.


Why not? If what happened in Las Vegas dosen't show why we need to repeal the second amendment, you are a lost soul.


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that would take away the right to have a militia.
> 
> What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.
> 
> I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property
Click to expand...

Then you need to buy a dictionary.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> 
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that would take away the right to have a militia.
> 
> What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.
> 
> I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you need to buy a dictionary.
Click to expand...

really?

Militia - New World Encyclopedia

There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that would take away the right to have a militia.
> 
> What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.
> 
> I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you need to buy a dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really?
> 
> Militia - New World Encyclopedia
> 
> There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.
Click to expand...

I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that would take away the right to have a militia.
> 
> What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?
> 
> 
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.
> 
> I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you need to buy a dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really?
> 
> Militia - New World Encyclopedia
> 
> There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.
Click to expand...

I'm not a hillbilly.

A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.  

Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.
> 
> I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you need to buy a dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really?
> 
> Militia - New World Encyclopedia
> 
> There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a hillbilly.
> 
> A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.
> 
> Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.
Click to expand...

I have no problem with you protecting your home, but your militia is the National Guard.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation.  Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  Only well regulated militia are authorized, their own colors, standards, guidons and banners.
> 
> Everybody should know the pledge of allegiance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Troll post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, You being clueless and Causeless, does not mean I am a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You making troll post means you are a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a troll post; projecting much, right winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting?"  Surely you jest.  I only observed that you made a troll post.
Click to expand...

It was projection; I have a valid point, You have nothing but the repeal of rejection, not refutation.


----------



## danielpalos

SSGT Bags said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> The gun laws we have obviously aren't working. Time for something new.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Give the exact language of a law that would work better.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Well that would take away the right to have a militia.
> 
> What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Depends on your definition of militia!
Click to expand...

No, it doesn't.  Militia is already define for the US.


----------



## Humorme

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.
> 
> I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you need to buy a dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really?
> 
> Militia - New World Encyclopedia
> 
> There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a hillbilly.
> 
> A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.
> 
> Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.
Click to expand...


FWIW, even hillbillies are entitled to the_ equal protection of the laws_ pursuant to the 14th Amendment.

On another note, in 2005 the United States Supreme Court *ruled* "_that a town and its police department could not be sued under 42 U.S.C. §1983 for failing to enforce a restraining order, which had led to the murder of a woman's three children by her estranged husband._"

Town of Castle Rock v. Gonzales - Wikipedia

Justices Rule Police Do Not Have a Constitutional Duty to Protect Someone

That ruling went a long way into upholding another precedent wherein the District of Columbia Court of Appeals ruled:

 "_[t]he duty to provide public services is owed to the public at large, and, absent a special relationship between the police and an individual, no specific legal duty exists_"

*Warren v. District of Columbia* (444 A.2d. 1, D.C. Ct. of Ap. 1981)

Put into simple English, it is the duty of the individual to provide for their own personal safety.  I'll be damned if I allow the masses to tell me how to best protect myself and / or at what point I cannot employ common technology (i.e. a firearm.)  

You have the Right and the Duty to protect yourself... and to be ready to defend your country.

"_The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is *inherent in the people*; that* they may exercise it by themselves*; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed_."
- Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wellness of regulation.  Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed, when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.  Only well regulated militia are authorized, their own colors, standards, guidons and banners.
> 
> Everybody should know the pledge of allegiance.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Troll post
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, You being clueless and Causeless, does not mean I am a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You making troll post means you are a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a troll post; projecting much, right winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, not projecting and not a right winger.
Click to expand...

lol.  Yes, it is; and, you have the right wing position, down pat.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> We, the people, hereby amend the Constitution to revoke and remove the 2nd Amendment in its entirety.
> 
> Works for me.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well that would take away the right to have a militia.
> 
> What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.
> 
> I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you need to buy a dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really?
> 
> Militia - New World Encyclopedia
> 
> There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.
Click to expand...

The Unorganized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.
> 
> I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you need to buy a dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really?
> 
> Militia - New World Encyclopedia
> 
> There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a hillbilly.
> 
> A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.
> 
> Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.  It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.
> 
> I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to buy a dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really?
> 
> Militia - New World Encyclopedia
> 
> There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a hillbilly.
> 
> A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.
> 
> Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.
Click to expand...


What's your point?  The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, *unalienable*, absolute, God given Right.  So, big freaking deal.  A state can "_secure_" the Right.  The state does not grant the Right nor can it, *constitutionally*, deprive you of it.  And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to buy a dictionary.
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> 
> Militia - New World Encyclopedia
> 
> There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a hillbilly.
> 
> A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.
> 
> Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point?  The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, *unalienable*, absolute, God given Right.  So, big freaking deal.  A state can "_secure_" the Right.  The state does not grant the Right nor can it, *constitutionally*, deprive you of it.  And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.
Click to expand...

No, it isn't.  The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Chuz Life said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well that would take away the right to have a militia.
> 
> What the fuck will you do about the right of the people to keep and bear arms for reasons other than to form a fucking militia?
> 
> 
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.
> 
> I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you need to buy a dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really?
> 
> Militia - New World Encyclopedia
> 
> There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Unorganized militia.
Click to expand...

I am very organized


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.
> 
> I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to buy a dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really?
> 
> Militia - New World Encyclopedia
> 
> There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a hillbilly.
> 
> A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.
> 
> Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with you protecting your home, but your militia is the National Guard.
Click to expand...


No it's not.

There are private militia in existence today.

I happen to belong to one with just one member, me.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> You already have a militia, it's called the National Guard. Hillbillies with guns isn't a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> The militia is comprised of every able bodied person.
> 
> I am a militia of one with the sole charge of defending my wife and property
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Then you need to buy a dictionary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> really?
> 
> Militia - New World Encyclopedia
> 
> There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I am very organized
Click to expand...

me too; but, I am not well regulated or authorized my own colors, standards, guidons and banners.  

Thus, I will need to find militia who are.


----------



## Taz

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Then you need to buy a dictionary.
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> 
> Militia - New World Encyclopedia
> 
> There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a hillbilly.
> 
> A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.
> 
> Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with you protecting your home, but your militia is the National Guard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> There are private militia in existence today.
> 
> I happen to belong to one with just one member, me.
Click to expand...

You're lucky that the US allows delusional people to own guns.


----------



## hunarcy

danielpalos said:


> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Troll post
> 
> 
> 
> dear, You being clueless and Causeless, does not mean I am a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You making troll post means you are a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a troll post; projecting much, right winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, not projecting and not a right winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Yes, it is; and, you have the right wing position, down pat.
Click to expand...


I pity your inability to do anything but troll.  However, I will do the only rational thing and set your posts aside.  BTW, I have rational positions based on common sense and a progressive agenda.  That you want to paint me as a "rightwinger" just proves your status as a troll.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> 
> Militia - New World Encyclopedia
> 
> There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a hillbilly.
> 
> A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.
> 
> Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point?  The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, *unalienable*, absolute, God given Right.  So, big freaking deal.  A state can "_secure_" the Right.  The state does not grant the Right nor can it, *constitutionally*, deprive you of it.  And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.
Click to expand...


The Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the founding fathers and *earliest* court decisions is an extension to the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life.

Sorry, dude but it is you who is wrong.  AND, you won't have a single, solitary fact to back up your claim.

The judicial view:

“_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. *They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized*. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

"_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute and unqualified*_*."  *


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

"*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."

-*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

The United States Supreme Court agreed:
*
_*."*The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose.*" This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_*. *United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, in agreement with you, the Right is not granted by the Constitution and the Right exists with or without the Constitution.  State government rulings consistently ruled (in the earliest decisions) that the Right to keep and bear Arms is *absolute*.  The courts have consistently ruled that the word "_*absolute*_" is synonymous with terminology like inherent, natural, *unalienable*, etc. (aka God given Rights.)

“_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Since the Right to keep and bear Arms has consistently been ruled by the earliest decisions to mean the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution, then logically, it existed before that instrument was ratified.  And it the courts declared the Right to be an *absolute* Right, then the Right is also inherent and *unalienable* pursuant to applicable case law.

You fail.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> 
> Militia - New World Encyclopedia
> 
> There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a hillbilly.
> 
> A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.
> 
> Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with you protecting your home, but your militia is the National Guard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> There are private militia in existence today.
> 
> I happen to belong to one with just one member, me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're lucky that the US allows delusional people to own guns.
Click to expand...

Says the guy who never locks his doors and is convinced that there is no violence to be had in his little utopia


----------



## danielpalos

hunarcy said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> hunarcy said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> dear, You being clueless and Causeless, does not mean I am a troll.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You making troll post means you are a troll.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are a troll post; projecting much, right winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Nope, not projecting and not a right winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> lol.  Yes, it is; and, you have the right wing position, down pat.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I pity your inability to do anything but troll.  However, I will do the only rational thing and set your posts aside.  BTW, I have rational positions based on common sense and a progressive agenda.  That you want to paint me as a "rightwinger" just proves your status as a troll.
Click to expand...

Not in this thread.  You simply stated I am a troll, with nothing to support your position.  That is why, I am resorting to the fewest fallacies.

The People are the Militia.  You are either, well regulated or not.  Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.

The right wing is simply too laissez-fair to muster and become, necessary.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a hillbilly.
> 
> A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.
> 
> Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point?  The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, *unalienable*, absolute, God given Right.  So, big freaking deal.  A state can "_secure_" the Right.  The state does not grant the Right nor can it, *constitutionally*, deprive you of it.  And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the founding fathers and *earliest* court decisions is an extension to the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life.
> 
> Sorry, dude but it is you who is wrong.  AND, you won't have a single, solitary fact to back up your claim.
> 
> The judicial view:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. *They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized*. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute and unqualified*_*."  *
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> "*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."
> 
> -*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court agreed:
> *
> _*."*The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose.*" This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_*. *United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
> 
> So, in agreement with you, the Right is not granted by the Constitution and the Right exists with or without the Constitution.  State government rulings consistently ruled (in the earliest decisions) that the Right to keep and bear Arms is *absolute*.  The courts have consistently ruled that the word "_*absolute*_" is synonymous with terminology like inherent, natural, *unalienable*, etc. (aka God given Rights.)
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> Since the Right to keep and bear Arms has consistently been ruled by the earliest decisions to mean the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution, then logically, it existed before that instrument was ratified.  And it the courts declared the Right to be an *absolute* Right, then the Right is also inherent and *unalienable* pursuant to applicable case law.
> 
> You fail.
Click to expand...

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a hillbilly.
> 
> A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.
> 
> Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with you protecting your home, but your militia is the National Guard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> There are private militia in existence today.
> 
> I happen to belong to one with just one member, me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're lucky that the US allows delusional people to own guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who never locks his doors and is convinced that there is no violence to be had in his little utopia
Click to expand...

The right wing is only about morals, when it is about drugs and sex.

Only Bad persons do Bad things, right wingers.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a hillbilly.
> 
> A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.
> 
> Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point?  The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, *unalienable*, absolute, God given Right.  So, big freaking deal.  A state can "_secure_" the Right.  The state does not grant the Right nor can it, *constitutionally*, deprive you of it.  And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the founding fathers and *earliest* court decisions is an extension to the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life.
> 
> Sorry, dude but it is you who is wrong.  AND, you won't have a single, solitary fact to back up your claim.
> 
> The judicial view:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. *They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized*. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute and unqualified*_*."  *
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> "*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."
> 
> -*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court agreed:
> *
> _*."*The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose.*" This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_*. *United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
> 
> So, in agreement with you, the Right is not granted by the Constitution and the Right exists with or without the Constitution.  State government rulings consistently ruled (in the earliest decisions) that the Right to keep and bear Arms is *absolute*.  The courts have consistently ruled that the word "_*absolute*_" is synonymous with terminology like inherent, natural, *unalienable*, etc. (aka God given Rights.)
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> Since the Right to keep and bear Arms has consistently been ruled by the earliest decisions to mean the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution, then logically, it existed before that instrument was ratified.  And it the courts declared the Right to be an *absolute* Right, then the Right is also inherent and *unalienable* pursuant to applicable case law.
> 
> You fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.
Click to expand...



Utterly non - responsive reply.  danielpalos, you are trolling.  Your post means nothing.  How long have you been peddling that shit?  Nobody has ever bought it.  

Get your head out of your ass for a change.  To "_secure_" a Right does not create the Right; it does not grant the Right. It merely establishes that the Right exists and "_ensures"_  (sic) it. 

_Secure:  12.  to effect; make certain of; ensure
_
the definition of secure

“_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it.* The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals*, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) 

“_Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable r*ights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'*and to 'secure*,'*not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation_.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)

Sorry, danielpalos, that's the law and you can't change it with troll posts.


_
_


----------



## Humorme

Taz said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> really?
> 
> Militia - New World Encyclopedia
> 
> There is no minimum size to militia, and a solitary act of defense, including self-defense, can be thought of as one person calling up himself to defend the community, represented by himself or others, and to enforce the law. An example of this type of action is found in the citizen's arrest.
> 
> 
> 
> I've said it before, a hillbilly with a gun isn't a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I'm not a hillbilly.
> 
> A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.
> 
> Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I have no problem with you protecting your home, but your militia is the National Guard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> There are private militia in existence today.
> 
> I happen to belong to one with just one member, me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're lucky that the US allows delusional people to own guns.
Click to expand...


The government does not "_allow_" it.  They merely agree to insure the Right as it existed before government was created.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a hillbilly.
> 
> A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.
> 
> Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point?  The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, *unalienable*, absolute, God given Right.  So, big freaking deal.  A state can "_secure_" the Right.  The state does not grant the Right nor can it, *constitutionally*, deprive you of it.  And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the founding fathers and *earliest* court decisions is an extension to the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life.
> 
> Sorry, dude but it is you who is wrong.  AND, you won't have a single, solitary fact to back up your claim.
> 
> The judicial view:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. *They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized*. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute and unqualified*_*."  *
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> "*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."
> 
> -*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court agreed:
> *
> _*."*The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose.*" This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_*. *United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
> 
> So, in agreement with you, the Right is not granted by the Constitution and the Right exists with or without the Constitution.  State government rulings consistently ruled (in the earliest decisions) that the Right to keep and bear Arms is *absolute*.  The courts have consistently ruled that the word "_*absolute*_" is synonymous with terminology like inherent, natural, *unalienable*, etc. (aka God given Rights.)
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> Since the Right to keep and bear Arms has consistently been ruled by the earliest decisions to mean the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution, then logically, it existed before that instrument was ratified.  And it the courts declared the Right to be an *absolute* Right, then the Right is also inherent and *unalienable* pursuant to applicable case law.
> 
> You fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.
Click to expand...


Your nonsense is rarely worth a response, but I sure as Hell did not advocate any so - called "_private justice_."

Citizens are required to exhaust *all* nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions.  OTOH, when it comes to their personal security, the individual must, by law, be wholly responsible for that.  In addition, if / when government breaks down, the citizenry is empowered to be the last line of defense in a free nation.


----------



## Skull Pilot

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm not a hillbilly.
> 
> A person acting in self defense can be thought of as a militia.
> 
> Unlike you I won't abdicate the responsibility of protecting my home and wife to the government.
> 
> 
> 
> I have no problem with you protecting your home, but your militia is the National Guard.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it's not.
> 
> There are private militia in existence today.
> 
> I happen to belong to one with just one member, me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You're lucky that the US allows delusional people to own guns.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Says the guy who never locks his doors and is convinced that there is no violence to be had in his little utopia
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The right wing is only about morals, when it is about drugs and sex.
> 
> Only Bad persons do Bad things, right wingers.
Click to expand...

And to whom are you addressing this?
I am not "right wing"


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?  The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, *unalienable*, absolute, God given Right.  So, big freaking deal.  A state can "_secure_" the Right.  The state does not grant the Right nor can it, *constitutionally*, deprive you of it.  And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the founding fathers and *earliest* court decisions is an extension to the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life.
> 
> Sorry, dude but it is you who is wrong.  AND, you won't have a single, solitary fact to back up your claim.
> 
> The judicial view:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. *They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized*. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute and unqualified*_*."  *
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> "*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."
> 
> -*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court agreed:
> *
> _*."*The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose.*" This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_*. *United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
> 
> So, in agreement with you, the Right is not granted by the Constitution and the Right exists with or without the Constitution.  State government rulings consistently ruled (in the earliest decisions) that the Right to keep and bear Arms is *absolute*.  The courts have consistently ruled that the word "_*absolute*_" is synonymous with terminology like inherent, natural, *unalienable*, etc. (aka God given Rights.)
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> Since the Right to keep and bear Arms has consistently been ruled by the earliest decisions to mean the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution, then logically, it existed before that instrument was ratified.  And it the courts declared the Right to be an *absolute* Right, then the Right is also inherent and *unalienable* pursuant to applicable case law.
> 
> You fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Utterly non - responsive reply.  danielpalos, you are trolling.  Your post means nothing.  How long have you been peddling that shit?  Nobody has ever bought it.
> 
> Get your head out of your ass for a change.  To "_secure_" a Right does not create the Right; it does not grant the Right. It merely establishes that the Right exists and "_ensures"_  (sic) it.
> 
> _Secure:  12.  to effect; make certain of; ensure
> _
> the definition of secure
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it.* The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals*, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)
> 
> “_Men are endowed by their Creator with certain *unalienable r*ights,-'life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness;'*and to 'secure*,'*not grant or create*, these rights, governments are instituted. That property which a man has honestly acquired he retains full control of, subject to these limitations: First, that he shall not use it to his neighbor's injury, and that does not mean that he must use it for his neighbor's benefit; second, that if the devotes it to a public use, he gives to the public a right to control that use; and third, that whenever the public needs require, the public may take it upon payment of due compensation_.” BUDD v. PEOPLE OF STATE OF NEW YORK, 143 U.S. 517 (1892)
> 
> Sorry, danielpalos, that's the law and you can't change it with troll posts.
Click to expand...

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.

Simply citing definitions but not understanding the context, is worthless.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  It is a natural right, secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?  The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, *unalienable*, absolute, God given Right.  So, big freaking deal.  A state can "_secure_" the Right.  The state does not grant the Right nor can it, *constitutionally*, deprive you of it.  And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it isn't.  The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the founding fathers and *earliest* court decisions is an extension to the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life.
> 
> Sorry, dude but it is you who is wrong.  AND, you won't have a single, solitary fact to back up your claim.
> 
> The judicial view:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. *They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized*. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute and unqualified*_*."  *
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> "*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."
> 
> -*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court agreed:
> *
> _*."*The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose.*" This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_*. *United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
> 
> So, in agreement with you, the Right is not granted by the Constitution and the Right exists with or without the Constitution.  State government rulings consistently ruled (in the earliest decisions) that the Right to keep and bear Arms is *absolute*.  The courts have consistently ruled that the word "_*absolute*_" is synonymous with terminology like inherent, natural, *unalienable*, etc. (aka God given Rights.)
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> Since the Right to keep and bear Arms has consistently been ruled by the earliest decisions to mean the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution, then logically, it existed before that instrument was ratified.  And it the courts declared the Right to be an *absolute* Right, then the Right is also inherent and *unalienable* pursuant to applicable case law.
> 
> You fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is rarely worth a response, but I sure as Hell did not advocate any so - called "_private justice_."
> 
> Citizens are required to exhaust *all* nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions.  OTOH, when it comes to their personal security, the individual must, by law, be wholly responsible for that.  In addition, if / when government breaks down, the citizenry is empowered to be the last line of defense in a free nation.
Click to expand...

10USC246 is federal law.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.

Only custom and habit until it was indistinguishable from morals, preceded our Constitutions.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> What's your point?  The right to keep and bear Arms is a natural, inherent, *unalienable*, absolute, God given Right.  So, big freaking deal.  A state can "_secure_" the Right.  The state does not grant the Right nor can it, *constitutionally*, deprive you of it.  And if / when it did, you exhaust all of your nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress and then decide whether to rebel or commit yourself to slavery.
> 
> 
> 
> No, it isn't.  The right to acquire, posses, and protect oneself, family and property, is a natural right.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms, according to the founding fathers and *earliest* court decisions is an extension to the Right to Liberty and the Right to Life.
> 
> Sorry, dude but it is you who is wrong.  AND, you won't have a single, solitary fact to back up your claim.
> 
> The judicial view:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. *They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized*. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was Bliss v. Commonwealth. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute and unqualified*_*."  *
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> "*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."
> 
> -*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> 
> The United States Supreme Court agreed:
> *
> _*."*The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose.*" This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_*. *United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)
> 
> So, in agreement with you, the Right is not granted by the Constitution and the Right exists with or without the Constitution.  State government rulings consistently ruled (in the earliest decisions) that the Right to keep and bear Arms is *absolute*.  The courts have consistently ruled that the word "_*absolute*_" is synonymous with terminology like inherent, natural, *unalienable*, etc. (aka God given Rights.)
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> Since the Right to keep and bear Arms has consistently been ruled by the earliest decisions to mean the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution, then logically, it existed before that instrument was ratified.  And it the courts declared the Right to be an *absolute* Right, then the Right is also inherent and *unalienable* pursuant to applicable case law.
> 
> You fail.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions via public or social justice, not private justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your nonsense is rarely worth a response, but I sure as Hell did not advocate any so - called "_private justice_."
> 
> Citizens are required to exhaust *all* nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions.  OTOH, when it comes to their personal security, the individual must, by law, be wholly responsible for that.  In addition, if / when government breaks down, the citizenry is empowered to be the last line of defense in a free nation.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 10USC246 is federal law.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions.
> 
> Only custom and habit until it was indistinguishable from morals, preceded our Constitutions.
Click to expand...


The statute you cite only* defines classes *of militia.  Here is a quote from your link:

"_(2)  the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia._"

If you are a citizen and you're not in the regular armed services (Army, Navy, USMC, Air Force, Coast Guard, etc.) AND you are not a part time federal soldier like National Guard or Naval Militia, then you are in the unorganized militia.

That is only indirectly related to the Right to keep and bear Arms.  

“_The rights of conscience, of bearing arms, of changing the government, are declared to be* inherent in the people*_.”  (*Fisher Ames*,  founding father and U.S. Representative when the Constitution was ratified)

"“_Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state_.”

“_The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is *inherent in the people*...that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed_.”  *Thomas Jefferson

“*_Arms in the hands of individual citizens may be used at individual discretion for the defence of the country, the over-throw of tyranny, or in private self-defense_*.”  John Adams*

In* McDonald v. Chigcago, *the United States Supreme Court had this to say:

"_Our decision in Heller points unmistakably to the answer. Self-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day,15 and in Heller, we held that individual self-defense is “the central component” of the Second Amendment right. 554 U. S., at ___ (slip op., at 26); see also id., at ___ (slip op., at 56) (*stating that the “inherent right of self-defense has been central to the Second Amendment right”*). Explaining that “the need for defense of self, family, and property is most acute” in the home_..."   McDonaldv.Chicago 561 U. S. 742 (2012)

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

And, danielpalos, that *is* the law!  You have a separate,* inherent* Right to keep and bear Arms that is associated with your ability to preserve your Life and your Freedoms.
*

*


----------



## danielpalos

You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.
> 
> Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.



You are grasping at straws.  The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an* unorganized* militia.  BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.

The law does not require the militia to be organized.  Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.
_

“The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. *Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped*_” – *Alexander Hamilton*, Federalist No.2

As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, *THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS*.

Please open your eyes and read the cited cases.  The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.

The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law.  Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.

The law is about a *well regulated* militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army.  And how did they intend to regulate the militia?  Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:

“_The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_.”  *Patrick Henry* 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.

“_A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms_.”  *Richard Henry Lee* (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)

 “_The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction_.” – *Sir George Tucker*, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)

Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.
> 
> Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws.  The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an* unorganized* militia.  BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.
> 
> The law does not require the militia to be organized.  Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.
> _
> 
> “The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. *Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped*_” – *Alexander Hamilton*, Federalist No.2
> 
> As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, *THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS*.
> 
> Please open your eyes and read the cited cases.  The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law.  Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.
> 
> The law is about a *well regulated* militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army.  And how did they intend to regulate the militia?  Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:
> 
> “_The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_.”  *Patrick Henry* 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
> 
> “_A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms_.”  *Richard Henry Lee* (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
> 
> “_The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction_.” – *Sir George Tucker*, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)
> 
> Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?
Click to expand...

You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.

Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.  

Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.


----------



## justinacolmena

Like many things, this matter is very simple.

There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.

To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.

Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.

I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.

We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.

One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.
> 
> Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws.  The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an* unorganized* militia.  BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.
> 
> The law does not require the militia to be organized.  Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.
> _
> 
> “The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. *Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped*_” – *Alexander Hamilton*, Federalist No.2
> 
> As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, *THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS*.
> 
> Please open your eyes and read the cited cases.  The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law.  Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.
> 
> The law is about a *well regulated* militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army.  And how did they intend to regulate the militia?  Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:
> 
> “_The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_.”  *Patrick Henry* 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
> 
> “_A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms_.”  *Richard Henry Lee* (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
> 
> “_The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction_.” – *Sir George Tucker*, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)
> 
> Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.
> 
> Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.
Click to expand...


Appeals to ignorance?  I'm sorry.  I did not realize you were ignorant.  But, I held out hope you could learn.

Natural Rights exist without Due Process.  For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:

"_The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states_


----------



## Humorme

justinacolmena said:


> Like many things, this matter is very simple.
> 
> There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.
> 
> To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.
> 
> Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.
> 
> I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.
> 
> We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.
> 
> One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."



There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:

1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and 

2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.

The de facto government maintains that we have a "_Living Constitution_" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.  In the Constitution all the branches of government are co-equal with the final arbiter of the law being the people of the United States.

Under the legal / lawful / de jure Constitution, the government does not have the *authority* to take the guns of private citizens, but they do have the *power*.  Think of it like this:

You are eating in a restaurant.  An armed man comes in and demands the money and valuables of all the patrons.  Nobody is armed.  He has the *power* to take your money.  But, the law is not on his side, so he lacks the *authority*.  If an armed patron of the restaurant tries to reason with the robber and fails, then shoots the robber, that patron is justified.

Likewise, the people have a duty to exercise all of their nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress, but they are not, by the laws of God and the Constitution required to surrender their weaponry regardless of the pretext.

If you've committed a crime and paid the debt whereupon you were released, under the de jure laws of this country you should be able to own a firearm.  If you're crazy and pose an immediate threat to yourself or others, you need to be in protective custody.  In neither scenario should anybody here be demoted to the position of a second class citizen.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like many things, this matter is very simple.
> 
> There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.
> 
> To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.
> 
> Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.
> 
> I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.
> 
> We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.
> 
> One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:
> 
> 1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and
> 
> 2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.
> 
> The de facto government maintains that we have a "_Living Constitution_" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.
Click to expand...

The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like many things, this matter is very simple.
> 
> There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.
> 
> To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.
> 
> Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.
> 
> I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.
> 
> We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.
> 
> One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:
> 
> 1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and
> 
> 2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.
> 
> The de facto government maintains that we have a "_Living Constitution_" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."
Click to expand...


No it does not.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like many things, this matter is very simple.
> 
> There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.
> 
> To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.
> 
> Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.
> 
> I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.
> 
> We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.
> 
> One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:
> 
> 1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and
> 
> 2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.
> 
> The de facto government maintains that we have a "_Living Constitution_" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.
Click to expand...

Of course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like many things, this matter is very simple.
> 
> There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.
> 
> To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.
> 
> Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.
> 
> I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.
> 
> We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.
> 
> One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:
> 
> 1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and
> 
> 2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.
> 
> The de facto government maintains that we have a "_Living Constitution_" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.
Click to expand...


I don't know if you're more of a liar than you are an idiot or more of an idiot than a liar.  You are here, as usual to troll me.  You make an asinine statement; don't back it up with anything and expect a response.  

I'm not playing your childish game on this thread.  If you have something to say, say it.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like many things, this matter is very simple.
> 
> There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.
> 
> To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.
> 
> Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.
> 
> I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.
> 
> We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.
> 
> One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:
> 
> 1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and
> 
> 2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.
> 
> The de facto government maintains that we have a "_Living Constitution_" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you're more of a liar than you are an idiot or more of an idiot than a liar.  You are here, as usual to troll me.  You make an asinine statement; don't back it up with anything and expect a response.
> 
> I'm not playing your childish game on this thread.  If you have something to say, say it.
Click to expand...

LOL

You poor thing, bless your heart. Why do you blame me for your ignorance? 

The Constitution itself backs me up. It contains the language required to alter it, rendering it a living Constitution.

_*Article. V.*

The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate._​
You're welcome for the free education.


----------



## danielpalos

justinacolmena said:


> Like many things, this matter is very simple.
> 
> There is no such thing as "unlawful possession of a firearm" in the United States of America.
> 
> To any literate person, the possession and carrying of firearms, whether open or concealed, is an unqualified right: it is not, cannot, and shall not be unlawful to possess or carry a firearm in the United States of America.
> 
> Those who threaten the possession and carrying of firearms by persons arbitrarily considered felons, mentally ill, dishonorable, or otherwise dangerous or unfit to possess a firearm on other pretended grounds, (18 USC sect. 922,) with imprisonment and fines, do so unlawfully, in defiance of the Constitution of the United States of America, being in rebellion and insurrection against the same.
> 
> I am of the same mind about the right to vote as I am about the right to bear arms, even though it has not been enumerated in such an unqualified sense in the Constitution. When such a large portion of the population, has been incarcerated without the due process of law, I feel that such persons have the unqualified and unalienable right to vote the politicians who put them there out of office.
> 
> We are commanded in the Holy Scripture especially to remember those who are in bonds or in prison.
> 
> One of Jesus Christ's most severe judgments is this: "I was in prison, and ye visited me not."


Are you on the right wing?



> SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the
> individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed.
> (Source: Illinois Constitution.)


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.
> 
> Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws.  The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an* unorganized* militia.  BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.
> 
> The law does not require the militia to be organized.  Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.
> _
> 
> “The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. *Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped*_” – *Alexander Hamilton*, Federalist No.2
> 
> As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, *THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS*.
> 
> Please open your eyes and read the cited cases.  The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law.  Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.
> 
> The law is about a *well regulated* militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army.  And how did they intend to regulate the militia?  Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:
> 
> “_The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_.”  *Patrick Henry* 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
> 
> “_A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms_.”  *Richard Henry Lee* (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
> 
> “_The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction_.” – *Sir George Tucker*, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)
> 
> Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.
> 
> Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appeals to ignorance?  I'm sorry.  I did not realize you were ignorant.  But, I held out hope you could learn.
> 
> Natural Rights exist without Due Process.  For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:
> 
> "_The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states_
Click to expand...

this is the Point, dear:  Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.
> 
> Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws.  The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an* unorganized* militia.  BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.
> 
> The law does not require the militia to be organized.  Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.
> _
> 
> “The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. *Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped*_” – *Alexander Hamilton*, Federalist No.2
> 
> As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, *THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS*.
> 
> Please open your eyes and read the cited cases.  The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law.  Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.
> 
> The law is about a *well regulated* militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army.  And how did they intend to regulate the militia?  Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:
> 
> “_The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_.”  *Patrick Henry* 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
> 
> “_A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms_.”  *Richard Henry Lee* (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
> 
> “_The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction_.” – *Sir George Tucker*, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)
> 
> Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.
> 
> Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appeals to ignorance?  I'm sorry.  I did not realize you were ignorant.  But, I held out hope you could learn.
> 
> Natural Rights exist without Due Process.  For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:
> 
> "_The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the Point, dear:  Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


*Unnecessarily vulgar insult deleted.*

Secondly, *YOU* are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment.  You need to learn how to read.

I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you.  The Right exists with or *without* the Constitution.  The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does *not* grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it.  The militia is what is subject to regulation, *NOT* the Right to keep and bear Arms.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There are two basic governments operating in the United States of America:
> 
> 1) the de jure / legal / constitutional Republic with a Constitution operated by we, the people and
> 
> 2) the de facto / illegal - federal / legislative Democracy owned and controlled by elite multinational corporations.
> 
> The de facto government maintains that we have a "_Living Constitution_" and they have put the courts at the head of the government.
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you're more of a liar than you are an idiot or more of an idiot than a liar.  You are here, as usual to troll me.  You make an asinine statement; don't back it up with anything and expect a response.
> 
> I'm not playing your childish game on this thread.  If you have something to say, say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You poor thing, bless your heart. Why do you blame me for your ignorance?
> 
> The Constitution itself backs me up. It contains the language required to alter it, rendering it a living Constitution.
> 
> _*Article. V.*
> 
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate._​
> You're welcome for the free education.
Click to expand...


Your dumb ass provided nothing except condescension and proof that the Constitution is *NOT* a living document, but must be amended by a very definitive number of people.


----------



## Humorme

Two of the greatest board trolls on the Internet have now entered this thread.  If we are to be subjected to the insanity of faun and danielpalos, this thread is done.  Maybe they can hook up and be happy we were able to introduce them.

At the end of the day,* nothing* has changed.  As John Adams, second president of the United States, stated:

"_You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed_.”

In law, the terminology of natural rights (sic), *unalienable* Rights, absolute, inherent, and God given are all synonymous.  Under the de jure / lawful / constitutional interpretation of our Constitution you have Rights that are above the government's law making power.  You are not required to give up those Rights and if the government expects that, you have a Duty, an Obligation, and the Right to rebel against tyranny in government. That is the bottom line.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Constitution defines itself as a "living Constitution."
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Of course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you're more of a liar than you are an idiot or more of an idiot than a liar.  You are here, as usual to troll me.  You make an asinine statement; don't back it up with anything and expect a response.
> 
> I'm not playing your childish game on this thread.  If you have something to say, say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You poor thing, bless your heart. Why do you blame me for your ignorance?
> 
> The Constitution itself backs me up. It contains the language required to alter it, rendering it a living Constitution.
> 
> _*Article. V.*
> 
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate._​
> You're welcome for the free education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your dumb ass provided nothing except condescension and proof that the Constitution is *NOT* a living document, but must be amended by a very definitive number of people.
Click to expand...

Moron.... that it can be amended establishes it as a living Constitution.

You really are a fucking retard to not grasp such a simple concept.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.
> 
> Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws.  The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an* unorganized* militia.  BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.
> 
> The law does not require the militia to be organized.  Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.
> _
> 
> “The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. *Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped*_” – *Alexander Hamilton*, Federalist No.2
> 
> As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, *THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS*.
> 
> Please open your eyes and read the cited cases.  The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law.  Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.
> 
> The law is about a *well regulated* militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army.  And how did they intend to regulate the militia?  Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:
> 
> “_The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_.”  *Patrick Henry* 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
> 
> “_A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms_.”  *Richard Henry Lee* (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
> 
> “_The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction_.” – *Sir George Tucker*, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)
> 
> Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.
> 
> Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appeals to ignorance?  I'm sorry.  I did not realize you were ignorant.  But, I held out hope you could learn.
> 
> Natural Rights exist without Due Process.  For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:
> 
> "_The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the Point, dear:  Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, I'm not your dear.  You need to hook up with that faggot, faun and have yourself a good old time.
> 
> Secondly, *YOU* are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment.  You need to learn how to read.
> 
> I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you.  The Right exists with or *without* the Constitution.  The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does *not* grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it.  The militia is what is subject to regulation, *NOT* the Right to keep and bear Arms.
Click to expand...

Thank you for admitting natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> Two of the greatest board trolls on the Internet have now entered this thread.  If we are to be subjected to the insanity of faun and danielpalos, this thread is done.  Maybe they can hook up and be happy we were able to introduce them.
> 
> At the end of the day,* nothing* has changed.  As John Adams, second president of the United States, stated:
> 
> "_You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed_.”
> 
> In law, the terminology of natural rights (sic), *unalienable* Rights, absolute, inherent, and God given are all synonymous.  Under the de jure / lawful / constitutional interpretation of our Constitution you have Rights that are above the government's law making power.  You are not required to give up those Rights and if the government expects that, you have a Duty, an Obligation, and the Right to rebel against tyranny in government. That is the bottom line.


You have to give up some natural rights to give that power to government.  We have a Constitution for that.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> No it does not.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I don't know if you're more of a liar than you are an idiot or more of an idiot than a liar.  You are here, as usual to troll me.  You make an asinine statement; don't back it up with anything and expect a response.
> 
> I'm not playing your childish game on this thread.  If you have something to say, say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You poor thing, bless your heart. Why do you blame me for your ignorance?
> 
> The Constitution itself backs me up. It contains the language required to alter it, rendering it a living Constitution.
> 
> _*Article. V.*
> 
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate._​
> You're welcome for the free education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your dumb ass provided nothing except condescension and proof that the Constitution is *NOT* a living document, but must be amended by a very definitive number of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron.... that it can be amended establishes it as a living Constitution.
> 
> You really are a fucking retard to not grasp such a simple concept.
Click to expand...


You're the moron.  What you just said proves, unequivocally, that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended through a legal process instead of being reinterpreted every few months by the courts.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws.  The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an* unorganized* militia.  BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.
> 
> The law does not require the militia to be organized.  Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.
> _
> 
> “The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. *Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped*_” – *Alexander Hamilton*, Federalist No.2
> 
> As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, *THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS*.
> 
> Please open your eyes and read the cited cases.  The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law.  Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.
> 
> The law is about a *well regulated* militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army.  And how did they intend to regulate the militia?  Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:
> 
> “_The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_.”  *Patrick Henry* 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
> 
> “_A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms_.”  *Richard Henry Lee* (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
> 
> “_The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction_.” – *Sir George Tucker*, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)
> 
> Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.
> 
> Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appeals to ignorance?  I'm sorry.  I did not realize you were ignorant.  But, I held out hope you could learn.
> 
> Natural Rights exist without Due Process.  For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:
> 
> "_The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the Point, dear:  Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, I'm not your dear.  You need to hook up with that faggot, faun and have yourself a good old time.
> 
> Secondly, *YOU* are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment.  You need to learn how to read.
> 
> I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you.  The Right exists with or *without* the Constitution.  The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does *not* grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it.  The militia is what is subject to regulation, *NOT* the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


Natural Rights don't have to be covered by the Second Amendment.  You *already have* the Rights.  All the Bill of Rights does is limit what government can do to the individual.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two of the greatest board trolls on the Internet have now entered this thread.  If we are to be subjected to the insanity of faun and danielpalos, this thread is done.  Maybe they can hook up and be happy we were able to introduce them.
> 
> At the end of the day,* nothing* has changed.  As John Adams, second president of the United States, stated:
> 
> "_You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed_.”
> 
> In law, the terminology of natural rights (sic), *unalienable* Rights, absolute, inherent, and God given are all synonymous.  Under the de jure / lawful / constitutional interpretation of our Constitution you have Rights that are above the government's law making power.  You are not required to give up those Rights and if the government expects that, you have a Duty, an Obligation, and the Right to rebel against tyranny in government. That is the bottom line.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to give up some natural rights to give that power to government.  We have a Constitution for that.
Click to expand...


*Unalienable* Rights cannot be forfeited.  That is the whole meaning of the word.  Government cannot take away certain Rights and you have no authority to give them up.  Furthermore, the courts have ruled that *unalienable*, inherent, natural and absolute are all the same thing.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it does. It's a living Constitution in that it's subject to change. And the Constitution defines its own manner of change.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you're more of a liar than you are an idiot or more of an idiot than a liar.  You are here, as usual to troll me.  You make an asinine statement; don't back it up with anything and expect a response.
> 
> I'm not playing your childish game on this thread.  If you have something to say, say it.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> LOL
> 
> You poor thing, bless your heart. Why do you blame me for your ignorance?
> 
> The Constitution itself backs me up. It contains the language required to alter it, rendering it a living Constitution.
> 
> _*Article. V.*
> 
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate._​
> You're welcome for the free education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your dumb ass provided nothing except condescension and proof that the Constitution is *NOT* a living document, but must be amended by a very definitive number of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron.... that it can be amended establishes it as a living Constitution.
> 
> You really are a fucking retard to not grasp such a simple concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the moron.  What you just said proves, unequivocally, that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended through a legal process instead of being reinterpreted every few months by the courts.
Click to expand...

Moron...

The ability to amend it establishes it as a living Constitution. You pointing to the process does not change that. If it were not a living Constitution, there would be no process to amend it.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I don't know if you're more of a liar than you are an idiot or more of an idiot than a liar.  You are here, as usual to troll me.  You make an asinine statement; don't back it up with anything and expect a response.
> 
> I'm not playing your childish game on this thread.  If you have something to say, say it.
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> You poor thing, bless your heart. Why do you blame me for your ignorance?
> 
> The Constitution itself backs me up. It contains the language required to alter it, rendering it a living Constitution.
> 
> _*Article. V.*
> 
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate._​
> You're welcome for the free education.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your dumb ass provided nothing except condescension and proof that the Constitution is *NOT* a living document, but must be amended by a very definitive number of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron.... that it can be amended establishes it as a living Constitution.
> 
> You really are a fucking retard to not grasp such a simple concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the moron.  What you just said proves, unequivocally, that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended through a legal process instead of being reinterpreted every few months by the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron...
> 
> The ability to amend it establishes it as a living Constitution. You pointing to the process does not change that. If it were not a living Constitution, there would be no process to amend it.
Click to expand...


You need to take some remedial classes in social civics.

The "_Living Document_" reference refers to the meaning of the Constitution constantly changing.  Therefore, you have unelected potentates called judges that say the words mean this today and the polar opposite the very next day.

The converse argument of that position was made by George Washington.  He understood the argument behind the "_Living Document_" concept long before modernists gave it that name.  Washington stated:

"_If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed_."

GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796


Read more at George Washington Quotes II


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> LOL
> 
> You poor thing, bless your heart. Why do you blame me for your ignorance?
> 
> The Constitution itself backs me up. It contains the language required to alter it, rendering it a living Constitution.
> 
> _*Article. V.*
> 
> The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States, or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate._​
> You're welcome for the free education.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your dumb ass provided nothing except condescension and proof that the Constitution is *NOT* a living document, but must be amended by a very definitive number of people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron.... that it can be amended establishes it as a living Constitution.
> 
> You really are a fucking retard to not grasp such a simple concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the moron.  What you just said proves, unequivocally, that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended through a legal process instead of being reinterpreted every few months by the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron...
> 
> The ability to amend it establishes it as a living Constitution. You pointing to the process does not change that. If it were not a living Constitution, there would be no process to amend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to take some remedial classes in social civics.
> 
> The "_Living Document_" reference refers to the meaning of the Constitution constantly changing.  Therefore, you have unelected potentates called judges that say the words mean this today and the polar opposite the very next day.
> 
> The converse argument of that position was made by George Washington.  He understood the argument behind the "_Living Document_" concept long before modernists gave it that name.  Washington stated:
> 
> "_If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed_."
> 
> GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796
> 
> 
> Read more at George Washington Quotes II
Click to expand...

Aww, you poor,****** ****. A living document is one which can be altered. The process, as you pointed to earlier, is irrelevant. The frequency in which it’s changed, as you point to now, is irrelevant.

Living Constitution Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.


----------



## Humorme

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are either organized and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.
> 
> Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws.  The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an* unorganized* militia.  BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.
> 
> The law does not require the militia to be organized.  Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.
> _
> 
> “The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. *Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped*_” – *Alexander Hamilton*, Federalist No.2
> 
> As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, *THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS*.
> 
> Please open your eyes and read the cited cases.  The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law.  Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.
> 
> The law is about a *well regulated* militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army.  And how did they intend to regulate the militia?  Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:
> 
> “_The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_.”  *Patrick Henry* 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
> 
> “_A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms_.”  *Richard Henry Lee* (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
> 
> “_The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction_.” – *Sir George Tucker*, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)
> 
> Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.
> 
> Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appeals to ignorance?  I'm sorry.  I did not realize you were ignorant.  But, I held out hope you could learn.
> 
> Natural Rights exist without Due Process.  For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:
> 
> "_The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the Point, dear:  Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unnecessarily vulgar insult deleted.*
> 
> Secondly, *YOU* are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment.  You need to learn how to read.
> 
> I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you.  The Right exists with or *without* the Constitution.  The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does *not* grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it.  The militia is what is subject to regulation, *NOT* the Right to keep and bear Arms.
Click to expand...




Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your dumb ass provided nothing except condescension and proof that the Constitution is *NOT* a living document, but must be amended by a very definitive number of people.
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.... that it can be amended establishes it as a living Constitution.
> 
> You really are a fucking retard to not grasp such a simple concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the moron.  What you just said proves, unequivocally, that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended through a legal process instead of being reinterpreted every few months by the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron...
> 
> The ability to amend it establishes it as a living Constitution. You pointing to the process does not change that. If it were not a living Constitution, there would be no process to amend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to take some remedial classes in social civics.
> 
> The "_Living Document_" reference refers to the meaning of the Constitution constantly changing.  Therefore, you have unelected potentates called judges that say the words mean this today and the polar opposite the very next day.
> 
> The converse argument of that position was made by George Washington.  He understood the argument behind the "_Living Document_" concept long before modernists gave it that name.  Washington stated:
> 
> "_If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed_."
> 
> GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796
> 
> 
> Read more at George Washington Quotes II
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you poor, demented cuck. A living document is one which can be altered. The process, as you pointed to earlier, is irrelevant. The frequency in which it’s changed, as you point to now, is irrelevant.
> 
> Living Constitution Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
Click to expand...


Let's fix your ignorance.

To quote an article on this subject:

"_Other proponents of a living Constitution believe that the document was written with broad language that allows for a changing interpretation. Former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan articulated this view as the Constitution's "majestic generalities": The document's language is often intentionally vague, which allows its interpretation to change. This, however, is very different from the living document theory that relies on social change. In the broad language approach, flexibility is written into the Constitution, and does not require outside social changes to justify a new interpretation_"

http://classroom.synonym.com/the-united-states-constitution-living-document-mean-20982.htm

When the courts change the interpretation via changes in society, you have a "_living Constitution_."  It is not a living document if the change is done via an Amendment.

Here is another view:

"_In United States constitutional interpretation, the Living Constitution is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The controversial idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. *Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that allowing judges to determine an ever-changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy. The primary alternative to the Living Constitution is most commonly described as originalism*_."

What does Living Constitution mean?


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are grasping at straws.  The militia statute YOU cited defines both an organized and an* unorganized* militia.  BOTH are recognized by the law YOU cited.
> 
> The law does not require the militia to be organized.  Our founding fathers were fearful of standing armies and select militias.
> _
> 
> “The project of disciplining all the militia of the United States is as futile as it would be injurious, if it were capable of being carried into execution. A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss. It would form an annual deduction from the productive labor of the country, to an amount which, calculating upon the present numbers of the people, would not fall far short of the whole expense of the civil establishments of all the States. To attempt a thing which would abridge the mass of labor and industry to so considerable an extent, would be unwise: and the experiment, if made, could not succeed, because it would not long be endured. *Little more can reasonably be aimed at, with respect to the people at large, than to have them properly armed and equipped*_” – *Alexander Hamilton*, Federalist No.2
> 
> As been demonstrated over and over and over again, danielpalos, *THE CONSTITUTION NEITHER CREATES NOR CONTROLS NATURAL, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, ABSOLUTE, INHERENT RIGHTS*.
> 
> Please open your eyes and read the cited cases.  The Second Amendment simply guarantees an existing Right with the primary beneficiary being the American people and the need to provide a bulwark against tyranny in government.
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that predates the Constitution and, as state courts ruled, that Right is above the law.  Your meaningless posts don't change what the plain and simple law is.
> 
> The law is about a *well regulated* militia - NOT registered guns, NOT select militias, NOT a standing army.  And how did they intend to regulate the militia?  Check the Alexander Hamilton quote above and contrast it to this:
> 
> “_The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_.”  *Patrick Henry* 3 Elliot, Debates at 386.
> 
> “_A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves…and include all men capable of bearing arms_.”  *Richard Henry Lee* (Additional letters from the Federal Farmer, at 169, 1788)
> 
> “_The right of self-defense is the first law of nature; in most governments it has been the study of rulers to confine this right within the narrowest possible limits…and [when] the right of the people to keep and bear arms is, under any color or pretext whatsoever, prohibited, liberty, if not already annihilated, is on the brink of destruction_.” – *Sir George Tucker*, Judge of the Virginia Supreme Court and U.S. District Court of Virginia in I Blackstone COMMENTARIES Sir George Tucker Ed., 1803, pg. 300 (App.)
> 
> Do you see how each and every argument you're bringing to this thread are being systematically refuted?
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.
> 
> Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Appeals to ignorance?  I'm sorry.  I did not realize you were ignorant.  But, I held out hope you could learn.
> 
> Natural Rights exist without Due Process.  For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:
> 
> "_The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the Point, dear:  Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unnecessarily vulgar insult deleted.*
> 
> Secondly, *YOU* are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment.  You need to learn how to read.
> 
> I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you.  The Right exists with or *without* the Constitution.  The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does *not* grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it.  The militia is what is subject to regulation, *NOT* the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron.... that it can be amended establishes it as a living Constitution.
> 
> You really are a fucking retard to not grasp such a simple concept.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're the moron.  What you just said proves, unequivocally, that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended through a legal process instead of being reinterpreted every few months by the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron...
> 
> The ability to amend it establishes it as a living Constitution. You pointing to the process does not change that. If it were not a living Constitution, there would be no process to amend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to take some remedial classes in social civics.
> 
> The "_Living Document_" reference refers to the meaning of the Constitution constantly changing.  Therefore, you have unelected potentates called judges that say the words mean this today and the polar opposite the very next day.
> 
> The converse argument of that position was made by George Washington.  He understood the argument behind the "_Living Document_" concept long before modernists gave it that name.  Washington stated:
> 
> "_If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed_."
> 
> GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796
> 
> 
> Read more at George Washington Quotes II
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you poor, demented cuck. A living document is one which can be altered. The process, as you pointed to earlier, is irrelevant. The frequency in which it’s changed, as you point to now, is irrelevant.
> 
> Living Constitution Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's fix your ignorance.
> 
> To quote an article on this subject:
> 
> "_Other proponents of a living Constitution believe that the document was written with broad language that allows for a changing interpretation. Former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan articulated this view as the Constitution's "majestic generalities": The document's language is often intentionally vague, which allows its interpretation to change. This, however, is very different from the living document theory that relies on social change. In the broad language approach, flexibility is written into the Constitution, and does not require outside social changes to justify a new interpretation_"
> 
> http://classroom.synonym.com/the-united-states-constitution-living-document-mean-20982.htm
> 
> When the courts change the interpretation via changes in society, you have a "_living Constitution_."  It is not a living document if the change is done via an Amendment.
Click to expand...

Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you??

That’s not even what I’m arguing. 

I said absolutely nothing about the Judicial branch.



Humorme said:


> Here is another view:
> 
> "_In United States constitutional interpretation, the Living Constitution is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The controversial idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. *Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that allowing judges to determine an ever-changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy. The primary alternative to the Living Constitution is most commonly described as originalism*_."
> 
> What does Living Constitution mean?


I’m also not saying it’s intentionally dynamic, to be left open to interpretation.

That’s now your third failed interpretation of what you _think_ I said. It’s adorable how you have no fucking clue what I said — but you’re sure I’m wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.
> 
> Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appeals to ignorance?  I'm sorry.  I did not realize you were ignorant.  But, I held out hope you could learn.
> 
> Natural Rights exist without Due Process.  For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:
> 
> "_The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the Point, dear:  Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, I'm not your dear.  You need to hook up with that faggot, faun and have yourself a good old time.
> 
> Secondly, *YOU* are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment.  You need to learn how to read.
> 
> I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you.  The Right exists with or *without* the Constitution.  The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does *not* grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it.  The militia is what is subject to regulation, *NOT* the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural Rights don't have to be covered by the Second Amendment.  You *already have* the Rights.  All the Bill of Rights does is limit what government can do to the individual.
Click to expand...

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two of the greatest board trolls on the Internet have now entered this thread.  If we are to be subjected to the insanity of faun and danielpalos, this thread is done.  Maybe they can hook up and be happy we were able to introduce them.
> 
> At the end of the day,* nothing* has changed.  As John Adams, second president of the United States, stated:
> 
> "_You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed_.”
> 
> In law, the terminology of natural rights (sic), *unalienable* Rights, absolute, inherent, and God given are all synonymous.  Under the de jure / lawful / constitutional interpretation of our Constitution you have Rights that are above the government's law making power.  You are not required to give up those Rights and if the government expects that, you have a Duty, an Obligation, and the Right to rebel against tyranny in government. That is the bottom line.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to give up some natural rights to give that power to government.  We have a Constitution for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot be forfeited.  That is the whole meaning of the word.  Government cannot take away certain Rights and you have no authority to give them up.  Furthermore, the courts have ruled that *unalienable*, inherent, natural and absolute are all the same thing.
Click to expand...

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; there is no "right to rebel against government tyranny".


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.
> 
> Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Natural rights are covered by State Constitutions and available, via Due Process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Appeals to ignorance?  I'm sorry.  I did not realize you were ignorant.  But, I held out hope you could learn.
> 
> Natural Rights exist without Due Process.  For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:
> 
> "_The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states_
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> this is the Point, dear:  Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unnecessarily vulgar insult deleted.*
> 
> Secondly, *YOU* are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment.  You need to learn how to read.
> 
> I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you.  The Right exists with or *without* the Constitution.  The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does *not* grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it.  The militia is what is subject to regulation, *NOT* the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're the moron.  What you just said proves, unequivocally, that the Constitution is NOT a living document, but must be amended through a legal process instead of being reinterpreted every few months by the courts.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Moron...
> 
> The ability to amend it establishes it as a living Constitution. You pointing to the process does not change that. If it were not a living Constitution, there would be no process to amend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to take some remedial classes in social civics.
> 
> The "_Living Document_" reference refers to the meaning of the Constitution constantly changing.  Therefore, you have unelected potentates called judges that say the words mean this today and the polar opposite the very next day.
> 
> The converse argument of that position was made by George Washington.  He understood the argument behind the "_Living Document_" concept long before modernists gave it that name.  Washington stated:
> 
> "_If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed_."
> 
> GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796
> 
> 
> Read more at George Washington Quotes II
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you poor, demented cuck. A living document is one which can be altered. The process, as you pointed to earlier, is irrelevant. The frequency in which it’s changed, as you point to now, is irrelevant.
> 
> Living Constitution Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's fix your ignorance.
> 
> To quote an article on this subject:
> 
> "_Other proponents of a living Constitution believe that the document was written with broad language that allows for a changing interpretation. Former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan articulated this view as the Constitution's "majestic generalities": The document's language is often intentionally vague, which allows its interpretation to change. This, however, is very different from the living document theory that relies on social change. In the broad language approach, flexibility is written into the Constitution, and does not require outside social changes to justify a new interpretation_"
> 
> http://classroom.synonym.com/the-united-states-constitution-living-document-mean-20982.htm
> 
> When the courts change the interpretation via changes in society, you have a "_living Constitution_."  It is not a living document if the change is done via an Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you??
> 
> That’s not even what I’m arguing.
> 
> I said absolutely nothing about the Judicial branch.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another view:
> 
> "_In United States constitutional interpretation, the Living Constitution is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The controversial idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. *Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that allowing judges to determine an ever-changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy. The primary alternative to the Living Constitution is most commonly described as originalism*_."
> 
> What does Living Constitution mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m also not saying it’s intentionally dynamic, to be left open to interpretation.
> 
> That’s now your third failed interpretation of what you _think_ I said. It’s adorable how you have no fucking clue what I said — but you’re sure I’m wrong.
Click to expand...


do you think that all that nasty shit you talk makes you look intelligent?  Do the posters here realize that you talk a lot of it and when somebody calls you out, you run like a scalded dog and cry to the moderators?  

You get to post nasty ass insults and try to start fights, but you lack the courage and the common sense to deal with it.  

Since you do not understand this conversation, you should have enough sense to STFU and quit rattling my cage.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two of the greatest board trolls on the Internet have now entered this thread.  If we are to be subjected to the insanity of faun and danielpalos, this thread is done.  Maybe they can hook up and be happy we were able to introduce them.
> 
> At the end of the day,* nothing* has changed.  As John Adams, second president of the United States, stated:
> 
> "_You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed_.”
> 
> In law, the terminology of natural rights (sic), *unalienable* Rights, absolute, inherent, and God given are all synonymous.  Under the de jure / lawful / constitutional interpretation of our Constitution you have Rights that are above the government's law making power.  You are not required to give up those Rights and if the government expects that, you have a Duty, an Obligation, and the Right to rebel against tyranny in government. That is the bottom line.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to give up some natural rights to give that power to government.  We have a Constitution for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot be forfeited.  That is the whole meaning of the word.  Government cannot take away certain Rights and you have no authority to give them up.  Furthermore, the courts have ruled that *unalienable*, inherent, natural and absolute are all the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; there is no "right to rebel against government tyranny".
Click to expand...


You out of your mind.

 "."_But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security..."  _(an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

History shows us that the founding fathers exhausted all of their non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions.  After exhausting all those avenues, they resorted to civil disobedience and passive resistance.  Then, when they were provoked by violence, they reacted in like kind.

The founding fathers taught by example.  Furthermore, our country was built upon those foundational principles just described so, once again danielpalos, YOU FAIL.
_
_


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Appeals to ignorance?  I'm sorry.  I did not realize you were ignorant.  But, I held out hope you could learn.
> 
> Natural Rights exist without Due Process.  For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:
> 
> "_The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states_
> 
> 
> 
> this is the Point, dear:  Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> First off, I'm not your dear.  You need to hook up with that faggot, faun and have yourself a good old time.
> 
> Secondly, *YOU* are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment.  You need to learn how to read.
> 
> I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you.  The Right exists with or *without* the Constitution.  The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does *not* grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it.  The militia is what is subject to regulation, *NOT* the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural Rights don't have to be covered by the Second Amendment.  You *already have* the Rights.  All the Bill of Rights does is limit what government can do to the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
Click to expand...



 You've already been proven wrong once before.  There is *NO *due process involved if you want to exercise a constitutional guarantee.

You don't have to go and petition courts in order to join a church


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Appeals to ignorance?  I'm sorry.  I did not realize you were ignorant.  But, I held out hope you could learn.
> 
> Natural Rights exist without Due Process.  For those who don't know what Due Process is, it is defined as follows:
> 
> "_The due process guarantees under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution Clause provide that the government shall not take a person's life, liberty, or property without due process of law. The due process clause of the 5th Amendment applies to the federal government and the 14th Amendment applies to the states_
> 
> 
> 
> this is the Point, dear:  Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unnecessarily vulgar insult deleted.*
> 
> Secondly, *YOU* are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment.  You need to learn how to read.
> 
> I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you.  The Right exists with or *without* the Constitution.  The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does *not* grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it.  The militia is what is subject to regulation, *NOT* the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> Moron...
> 
> The ability to amend it establishes it as a living Constitution. You pointing to the process does not change that. If it were not a living Constitution, there would be no process to amend it.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You need to take some remedial classes in social civics.
> 
> The "_Living Document_" reference refers to the meaning of the Constitution constantly changing.  Therefore, you have unelected potentates called judges that say the words mean this today and the polar opposite the very next day.
> 
> The converse argument of that position was made by George Washington.  He understood the argument behind the "_Living Document_" concept long before modernists gave it that name.  Washington stated:
> 
> "_If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed_."
> 
> GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796
> 
> 
> Read more at George Washington Quotes II
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you poor, demented cuck. A living document is one which can be altered. The process, as you pointed to earlier, is irrelevant. The frequency in which it’s changed, as you point to now, is irrelevant.
> 
> Living Constitution Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's fix your ignorance.
> 
> To quote an article on this subject:
> 
> "_Other proponents of a living Constitution believe that the document was written with broad language that allows for a changing interpretation. Former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan articulated this view as the Constitution's "majestic generalities": The document's language is often intentionally vague, which allows its interpretation to change. This, however, is very different from the living document theory that relies on social change. In the broad language approach, flexibility is written into the Constitution, and does not require outside social changes to justify a new interpretation_"
> 
> http://classroom.synonym.com/the-united-states-constitution-living-document-mean-20982.htm
> 
> When the courts change the interpretation via changes in society, you have a "_living Constitution_."  It is not a living document if the change is done via an Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you??
> 
> That’s not even what I’m arguing.
> 
> I said absolutely nothing about the Judicial branch.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another view:
> 
> "_In United States constitutional interpretation, the Living Constitution is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The controversial idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. *Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that allowing judges to determine an ever-changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy. The primary alternative to the Living Constitution is most commonly described as originalism*_."
> 
> What does Living Constitution mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m also not saying it’s intentionally dynamic, to be left open to interpretation.
> 
> That’s now your third failed interpretation of what you _think_ I said. It’s adorable how you have no fucking clue what I said — but you’re sure I’m wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you think that all that nasty shit you talk makes you look intelligent?  Do the posters here realize that you talk a lot of it and when somebody calls you out, you run like a scalded dog and cry to the moderators?
> 
> You get to post nasty ass insults and try to start fights, but you lack the courage and the common sense to deal with it.
> 
> Since you do not understand this conversation, you should have enough sense to STFU and quit rattling my cage.
Click to expand...

I didn't start a fight, ya flaming putz. But I don't take shit from cucks like you either. Meanwhile, I gave you the definition of a living document. It matters not if you lack the brain matter to understand.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is the Point, dear:  Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Unnecessarily vulgar insult deleted.*
> 
> Secondly, *YOU* are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment.  You need to learn how to read.
> 
> I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you.  The Right exists with or *without* the Constitution.  The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does *not* grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it.  The militia is what is subject to regulation, *NOT* the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You need to take some remedial classes in social civics.
> 
> The "_Living Document_" reference refers to the meaning of the Constitution constantly changing.  Therefore, you have unelected potentates called judges that say the words mean this today and the polar opposite the very next day.
> 
> The converse argument of that position was made by George Washington.  He understood the argument behind the "_Living Document_" concept long before modernists gave it that name.  Washington stated:
> 
> "_If in the opinion of the People, the distribution or modification of the Constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this, in one instance, may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed_."
> 
> GEORGE WASHINGTON, farewell address, Sep. 19, 1796
> 
> 
> Read more at George Washington Quotes II
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Aww, you poor, demented cuck. A living document is one which can be altered. The process, as you pointed to earlier, is irrelevant. The frequency in which it’s changed, as you point to now, is irrelevant.
> 
> Living Constitution Law and Legal Definition | USLegal, Inc.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Let's fix your ignorance.
> 
> To quote an article on this subject:
> 
> "_Other proponents of a living Constitution believe that the document was written with broad language that allows for a changing interpretation. Former Supreme Court Justice William Brennan articulated this view as the Constitution's "majestic generalities": The document's language is often intentionally vague, which allows its interpretation to change. This, however, is very different from the living document theory that relies on social change. In the broad language approach, flexibility is written into the Constitution, and does not require outside social changes to justify a new interpretation_"
> 
> http://classroom.synonym.com/the-united-states-constitution-living-document-mean-20982.htm
> 
> When the courts change the interpretation via changes in society, you have a "_living Constitution_."  It is not a living document if the change is done via an Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Seriously, what the fuck is wrong with you??
> 
> That’s not even what I’m arguing.
> 
> I said absolutely nothing about the Judicial branch.
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Here is another view:
> 
> "_In United States constitutional interpretation, the Living Constitution is the claim that the Constitution has a dynamic meaning or that it has the properties of an animate being in the sense that it changes. The controversial idea is associated with views that contemporaneous society should be taken into account when interpreting key constitutional phrases. While the arguments for the Living Constitution vary, they can generally be broken into two categories. First, the pragmatist view contends that interpreting the Constitution in accordance with its original meaning or intent is sometimes unacceptable as a policy matter, and thus that an evolving interpretation is necessary. The second, relating to intent, contends that the constitutional framers specifically wrote the Constitution in broad and flexible terms to create such a dynamic, "living" document. *Opponents of the idea often argue that the Constitution should be changed through the amendment process, and that allowing judges to determine an ever-changing meaning of the constitution undermines democracy. The primary alternative to the Living Constitution is most commonly described as originalism*_."
> 
> What does Living Constitution mean?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I’m also not saying it’s intentionally dynamic, to be left open to interpretation.
> 
> That’s now your third failed interpretation of what you _think_ I said. It’s adorable how you have no fucking clue what I said — but you’re sure I’m wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> do you think that all that nasty shit you talk makes you look intelligent?  Do the posters here realize that you talk a lot of it and when somebody calls you out, you run like a scalded dog and cry to the moderators?
> 
> You get to post nasty ass insults and try to start fights, but you lack the courage and the common sense to deal with it.
> 
> Since you do not understand this conversation, you should have enough sense to STFU and quit rattling my cage.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I didn't start a fight, ya flaming putz. But I don't take shit from cucks like you either. Meanwhile, I gave you the definition of a living document. It matters not if you lack the brain matter to understand.
Click to expand...



REPORTED BEFORE RESPONDING TO YOU


----------



## Faun

LOL



Humorme said:


> Do the posters here realize that you talk a lot of it and when somebody calls you out, you run like a scalded dog and cry to the moderators?





Humorme said:


> REPORTED BEFORE RESPONDING TO YOU


----------



## Coyote

*Let's get back ON TOPIC folks and not derail the thread.  There's some good discussion going on.*


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two of the greatest board trolls on the Internet have now entered this thread.  If we are to be subjected to the insanity of faun and danielpalos, this thread is done.  Maybe they can hook up and be happy we were able to introduce them.
> 
> At the end of the day,* nothing* has changed.  As John Adams, second president of the United States, stated:
> 
> "_You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed_.”
> 
> In law, the terminology of natural rights (sic), *unalienable* Rights, absolute, inherent, and God given are all synonymous.  Under the de jure / lawful / constitutional interpretation of our Constitution you have Rights that are above the government's law making power.  You are not required to give up those Rights and if the government expects that, you have a Duty, an Obligation, and the Right to rebel against tyranny in government. That is the bottom line.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to give up some natural rights to give that power to government.  We have a Constitution for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot be forfeited.  That is the whole meaning of the word.  Government cannot take away certain Rights and you have no authority to give them up.  Furthermore, the courts have ruled that *unalienable*, inherent, natural and absolute are all the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; there is no "right to rebel against government tyranny".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You out of your mind.
> 
> "."_But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security..."  _(an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> History shows us that the founding fathers exhausted all of their non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions.  After exhausting all those avenues, they resorted to civil disobedience and passive resistance.  Then, when they were provoked by violence, they reacted in like kind.
> 
> The founding fathers taught by example.  Furthermore, our country was built upon those foundational principles just described so, once again danielpalos, YOU FAIL.
Click to expand...

We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; any questions?


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> this is the Point, dear:  Natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> First off, I'm not your dear.  You need to hook up with that faggot, faun and have yourself a good old time.
> 
> Secondly, *YOU* are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment.  You need to learn how to read.
> 
> I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you.  The Right exists with or *without* the Constitution.  The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does *not* grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it.  The militia is what is subject to regulation, *NOT* the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Thank you for admitting natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural Rights don't have to be covered by the Second Amendment.  You *already have* the Rights.  All the Bill of Rights does is limit what government can do to the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been proven wrong once before.  There is *NO *due process involved if you want to exercise a constitutional guarantee.
> 
> You don't have to go and petition courts in order to join a church
Click to expand...

You have not proven anything.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.  Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Two of the greatest board trolls on the Internet have now entered this thread.  If we are to be subjected to the insanity of faun and danielpalos, this thread is done.  Maybe they can hook up and be happy we were able to introduce them.
> 
> At the end of the day,* nothing* has changed.  As John Adams, second president of the United States, stated:
> 
> "_You have rights antecedent to all earthly governments; rights that cannot be repealed_.”
> 
> In law, the terminology of natural rights (sic), *unalienable* Rights, absolute, inherent, and God given are all synonymous.  Under the de jure / lawful / constitutional interpretation of our Constitution you have Rights that are above the government's law making power.  You are not required to give up those Rights and if the government expects that, you have a Duty, an Obligation, and the Right to rebel against tyranny in government. That is the bottom line.
> 
> 
> 
> You have to give up some natural rights to give that power to government.  We have a Constitution for that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot be forfeited.  That is the whole meaning of the word.  Government cannot take away certain Rights and you have no authority to give them up.  Furthermore, the courts have ruled that *unalienable*, inherent, natural and absolute are all the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; there is no "right to rebel against government tyranny".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You out of your mind.
> 
> "."_But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security..."  _(an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> History shows us that the founding fathers exhausted all of their non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions.  After exhausting all those avenues, they resorted to civil disobedience and passive resistance.  Then, when they were provoked by violence, they reacted in like kind.
> 
> The founding fathers taught by example.  Furthermore, our country was built upon those foundational principles just described so, once again danielpalos, YOU FAIL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; any questions?
Click to expand...


What is your point?  You have a First Amendment Right to Freedom of speech, religion, etc.  You don't need the legislature NOR a court order... not even permission to exercise them.  Due Process doesn't come into play unless you *misuse* your Rights or are *denied them via unconstitutional means like prior restraint*.

You are talking irrelevant nonsense.  

Whenever anyone here purchases a firearm, there is no due process involved.  You buy it, take it home, check the action, put a dab of grease on the locking lugs, rails, etc. and load it up and start shooting holes in the target.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to give up some natural rights to give that power to government.  We have a Constitution for that.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot be forfeited.  That is the whole meaning of the word.  Government cannot take away certain Rights and you have no authority to give them up.  Furthermore, the courts have ruled that *unalienable*, inherent, natural and absolute are all the same thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; there is no "right to rebel against government tyranny".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You out of your mind.
> 
> "."_But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security..."  _(an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> History shows us that the founding fathers exhausted all of their non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions.  After exhausting all those avenues, they resorted to civil disobedience and passive resistance.  Then, when they were provoked by violence, they reacted in like kind.
> 
> The founding fathers taught by example.  Furthermore, our country was built upon those foundational principles just described so, once again danielpalos, YOU FAIL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point?  You have a First Amendment Right to Freedom of speech, religion, etc.  You don't need the legislature NOR a court order... not even permission to exercise them.  Due Process doesn't come into play unless you *misuse* your Rights or are *denied them via unconstitutional means like prior restraint*.
> 
> You are talking irrelevant nonsense.
> 
> Whenever anyone here purchases a firearm, there is no due process involved.  You buy it, take it home, check the action, put a dab of grease on the locking lugs, rails, etc. and load it up and start shooting holes in the target.
Click to expand...

The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.

And,

Only well regulated militias of the _United States_ may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> First off, I'm not your dear.  You need to hook up with that faggot, faun and have yourself a good old time.
> 
> Secondly, *YOU* are the only one here claiming that our natural Rights are covered by the Second Amendment.  You need to learn how to read.
> 
> I've cited Cruikshank more than a hundred times since I've known you.  The Right exists with or *without* the Constitution.  The Second Amendment merely acknowledges the Right and insures it... it does *not* grant it, create it, nor purport to regulate it.  The militia is what is subject to regulation, *NOT* the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Natural Rights don't have to be covered by the Second Amendment.  You *already have* the Rights.  All the Bill of Rights does is limit what government can do to the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been proven wrong once before.  There is *NO *due process involved if you want to exercise a constitutional guarantee.
> 
> You don't have to go and petition courts in order to join a church
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have not proven anything.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.  Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


I have proven, from court decisions all the way up to the* United States Supreme Court* that the Right to keep and bear Arms existed before the ratification of the Second Amendment; that it is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence; that you have an *inherent Right* to own firearms.

You are the one who has proven nothing.  You keep yapping about *state constitutions*.  Well, let us take one and see how the courts ruled:

"_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. *He does not derive it from the state government*, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "*high powers" delegated directly to the citizen*, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because *it is above the law*, and independent of the law-making power.

The argument advanced against the constitutionality of this law is, that any discrimination made by the legislature, in punishing the abuse of this right, in regard to a particular weapon, is an impairing of the right of its lawful use_."

Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)

The courts clearly and unequivocally disagree with the snake oil you keep trying to sell. * NOBODY*, not even on your own side, is buying whatever you're selling - unless they just don't understand.  And, to add insult to injury, you have not been able to produce one, single, solitary fact from *ANY *source to back up your claims with.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> *Unalienable* Rights cannot be forfeited.  That is the whole meaning of the word.  Government cannot take away certain Rights and you have no authority to give them up.  Furthermore, the courts have ruled that *unalienable*, inherent, natural and absolute are all the same thing.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; there is no "right to rebel against government tyranny".
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You out of your mind.
> 
> "."_But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security..."  _(an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> History shows us that the founding fathers exhausted all of their non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions.  After exhausting all those avenues, they resorted to civil disobedience and passive resistance.  Then, when they were provoked by violence, they reacted in like kind.
> 
> The founding fathers taught by example.  Furthermore, our country was built upon those foundational principles just described so, once again danielpalos, YOU FAIL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point?  You have a First Amendment Right to Freedom of speech, religion, etc.  You don't need the legislature NOR a court order... not even permission to exercise them.  Due Process doesn't come into play unless you *misuse* your Rights or are *denied them via unconstitutional means like prior restraint*.
> 
> You are talking irrelevant nonsense.
> 
> Whenever anyone here purchases a firearm, there is no due process involved.  You buy it, take it home, check the action, put a dab of grease on the locking lugs, rails, etc. and load it up and start shooting holes in the target.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.
> 
> And,
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the _United States_ may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...


People always have a Right to rebel against tyranny.

"_Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, i*t is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government*, and to provide new Guards for their future security_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for admitting natural rights are not covered by our Second Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Rights don't have to be covered by the Second Amendment.  You *already have* the Rights.  All the Bill of Rights does is limit what government can do to the individual.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been proven wrong once before.  There is *NO *due process involved if you want to exercise a constitutional guarantee.
> 
> You don't have to go and petition courts in order to join a church
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have not proven anything.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.  Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have proven, from court decisions all the way up to the* United States Supreme Court* that the Right to keep and bear Arms existed before the ratification of the Second Amendment; that it is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence; that you have an *inherent Right* to own firearms.
> 
> You are the one who has proven nothing.  You keep yapping about *state constitutions*.  Well, let us take one and see how the courts ruled:
> 
> "_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. *He does not derive it from the state government*, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "*high powers" delegated directly to the citizen*, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because *it is above the law*, and independent of the law-making power.
> 
> The argument advanced against the constitutionality of this law is, that any discrimination made by the legislature, in punishing the abuse of this right, in regard to a particular weapon, is an impairing of the right of its lawful use_."
> 
> Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> 
> The courts clearly and unequivocally disagree with the snake oil you keep trying to sell. * NOBODY*, not even on your own side, is buying whatever you're selling - unless they just don't understand.  And, to add insult to injury, you have not been able to produce one, single, solitary fact from *ANY *source to back up your claims with.
Click to expand...

I keep forgetting you are on the right wing; let's try to keep it simpler.

The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; there is no "right to rebel against government tyranny".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You out of your mind.
> 
> "."_But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security..."  _(an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> History shows us that the founding fathers exhausted all of their non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions.  After exhausting all those avenues, they resorted to civil disobedience and passive resistance.  Then, when they were provoked by violence, they reacted in like kind.
> 
> The founding fathers taught by example.  Furthermore, our country was built upon those foundational principles just described so, once again danielpalos, YOU FAIL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point?  You have a First Amendment Right to Freedom of speech, religion, etc.  You don't need the legislature NOR a court order... not even permission to exercise them.  Due Process doesn't come into play unless you *misuse* your Rights or are *denied them via unconstitutional means like prior restraint*.
> 
> You are talking irrelevant nonsense.
> 
> Whenever anyone here purchases a firearm, there is no due process involved.  You buy it, take it home, check the action, put a dab of grease on the locking lugs, rails, etc. and load it up and start shooting holes in the target.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.
> 
> And,
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the _United States_ may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People always have a Right to rebel against tyranny.
> 
> "_Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, i*t is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government*, and to provide new Guards for their future security_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
Click to expand...

No, you don't.  You have to exhaust all legals means, not take "matters into your own hands".  

The militia exists to protect Government.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; there is no "right to rebel against government tyranny".
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You out of your mind.
> 
> "."_But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security..."  _(an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> History shows us that the founding fathers exhausted all of their non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions.  After exhausting all those avenues, they resorted to civil disobedience and passive resistance.  Then, when they were provoked by violence, they reacted in like kind.
> 
> The founding fathers taught by example.  Furthermore, our country was built upon those foundational principles just described so, once again danielpalos, YOU FAIL.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point?  You have a First Amendment Right to Freedom of speech, religion, etc.  You don't need the legislature NOR a court order... not even permission to exercise them.  Due Process doesn't come into play unless you *misuse* your Rights or are *denied them via unconstitutional means like prior restraint*.
> 
> You are talking irrelevant nonsense.
> 
> Whenever anyone here purchases a firearm, there is no due process involved.  You buy it, take it home, check the action, put a dab of grease on the locking lugs, rails, etc. and load it up and start shooting holes in the target.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.
> 
> And,
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the _United States_ may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People always have a Right to rebel against tyranny.
> 
> "_Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, i*t is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government*, and to provide new Guards for their future security_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
Click to expand...

There was no tyranny.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Natural Rights don't have to be covered by the Second Amendment.  You *already have* the Rights.  All the Bill of Rights does is limit what government can do to the individual.
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been proven wrong once before.  There is *NO *due process involved if you want to exercise a constitutional guarantee.
> 
> You don't have to go and petition courts in order to join a church
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have not proven anything.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.  Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have proven, from court decisions all the way up to the* United States Supreme Court* that the Right to keep and bear Arms existed before the ratification of the Second Amendment; that it is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence; that you have an *inherent Right* to own firearms.
> 
> You are the one who has proven nothing.  You keep yapping about *state constitutions*.  Well, let us take one and see how the courts ruled:
> 
> "_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. *He does not derive it from the state government*, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "*high powers" delegated directly to the citizen*, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because *it is above the law*, and independent of the law-making power.
> 
> The argument advanced against the constitutionality of this law is, that any discrimination made by the legislature, in punishing the abuse of this right, in regard to a particular weapon, is an impairing of the right of its lawful use_."
> 
> Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> 
> The courts clearly and unequivocally disagree with the snake oil you keep trying to sell. * NOBODY*, not even on your own side, is buying whatever you're selling - unless they just don't understand.  And, to add insult to injury, you have not been able to produce one, single, solitary fact from *ANY *source to back up your claims with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I keep forgetting you are on the right wing; let's try to keep it simpler.
> 
> The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.
Click to expand...


When a tyrannical government is shooting and enslaving people, the First Amendment is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.

I'm not on the right or the left.  I'm me.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been proven wrong once before.  There is *NO *due process involved if you want to exercise a constitutional guarantee.
> 
> You don't have to go and petition courts in order to join a church
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You have not proven anything.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.  Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have proven, from court decisions all the way up to the* United States Supreme Court* that the Right to keep and bear Arms existed before the ratification of the Second Amendment; that it is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence; that you have an *inherent Right* to own firearms.
> 
> You are the one who has proven nothing.  You keep yapping about *state constitutions*.  Well, let us take one and see how the courts ruled:
> 
> "_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. *He does not derive it from the state government*, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "*high powers" delegated directly to the citizen*, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because *it is above the law*, and independent of the law-making power.
> 
> The argument advanced against the constitutionality of this law is, that any discrimination made by the legislature, in punishing the abuse of this right, in regard to a particular weapon, is an impairing of the right of its lawful use_."
> 
> Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> 
> The courts clearly and unequivocally disagree with the snake oil you keep trying to sell. * NOBODY*, not even on your own side, is buying whatever you're selling - unless they just don't understand.  And, to add insult to injury, you have not been able to produce one, single, solitary fact from *ANY *source to back up your claims with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I keep forgetting you are on the right wing; let's try to keep it simpler.
> 
> The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a tyrannical government is shooting and enslaving people, the First Amendment is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.
> 
> I'm not on the right or the left.  I'm me.
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## justinacolmena

danielpalos said:


> Are you on the right wing?



No. Advocating for and insisting on rights for LGBT and other minorities does not under any circumstances put me "on the right wing" of politics in America.

The right to bear arms is a right.

Therefore it is lawful to bear arms in the United States.

To make or enforce any law against bearing arms is to infringe on a right which under the supreme law of the land "shall not be infringed." The Constitution of the United States, including its duly ratified amendments, is the supreme law of the land in the United States. It really is that simple.

The classes of persons prohibited from bearing arms are overwhelmingly composed of minority citizens.

Persons arbitrarily considered "felons" or "dishonorable" -- without any adequate standard of due process of law -- the "mentally ill" -- again, without due process of law, and then there are those, in practice always men, subject to the whole slew of allegations generally made by women, those accused of wife-beating misdemeanors, or under one or another of the various sorts of civil restraining order or no-contact order or protective order from some bitch or whore; again, without any adequate standard of due process of law.

I'm not going to sit here and go off about "men's rights" or anything like that: it's just that the right to bear arms is sometimes seen as stereotypically "masculine" and owning a gun is symbolic of manhood to some men.  Don't get me wrong: plenty of women and girls own firearms; it's just that mainly men are being deprived of that right in what is really a frontal assault on American masculinity, (the mandatory circumcision of boys at birth being part of that.)

After all, over 90% of U.S. prisoners are men, according to B.O.P.

BOP Statistics: Inmate Gender

The inescapable conclusion from this is that the police forces in the United States are Philistines, and that they are cutting hair and putting out eyes. I can only refer to the Holy Scripture on that.

JUDGES CHAPTER 16 KJV



> SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the
> individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed.
> (Source: Illinois Constitution.)



"Subject only to the police power?" Ha, ha. Goodness no, they wouldn't take away Al Capone's right to possess firearms, now, would they?


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You out of your mind.
> 
> "."_But when a long Train of Abuses and Usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object, evinces a Design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their Right, it is their Duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future Security..."  _(an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> History shows us that the founding fathers exhausted all of their non-violent political and legal avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions.  After exhausting all those avenues, they resorted to civil disobedience and passive resistance.  Then, when they were provoked by violence, they reacted in like kind.
> 
> The founding fathers taught by example.  Furthermore, our country was built upon those foundational principles just described so, once again danielpalos, YOU FAIL.
> 
> 
> 
> We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; any questions?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What is your point?  You have a First Amendment Right to Freedom of speech, religion, etc.  You don't need the legislature NOR a court order... not even permission to exercise them.  Due Process doesn't come into play unless you *misuse* your Rights or are *denied them via unconstitutional means like prior restraint*.
> 
> You are talking irrelevant nonsense.
> 
> Whenever anyone here purchases a firearm, there is no due process involved.  You buy it, take it home, check the action, put a dab of grease on the locking lugs, rails, etc. and load it up and start shooting holes in the target.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.
> 
> And,
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the _United States_ may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People always have a Right to rebel against tyranny.
> 
> "_Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, i*t is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government*, and to provide new Guards for their future security_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you don't.  You have to exhaust all legals means, not take "matters into your own hands".
> 
> The militia exists to protect Government.
Click to expand...



You have to exhaust all nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions.  But, a free people are *never *required to submit to a yoke of tyranny.  

*THAT* is one of the foundational principles upon which this Republic was founded.

Why does the militia exist?  Who should I rely on?  Founding fathers who participated in articulating the Right* OR* danielpalos?

"_The constitutions of most of our States assert that *all power is inherent in the people*; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;_ … "
_*Thomas Jefferson * _letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824

“_To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them_.”  _*Richard Henry Lee* _American Statesman, 1788

“_The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. *They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them*_.” —    *Tench Coxe*, An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787

“_As the *military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens*, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms_.”  *Tench Coxe*   — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789

“_Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power*_.” *  Noah Webster *— An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787

“[_I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to *defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens*_.”   Alexander Hamilton— The Federalist, No. 29

“_What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . *Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia*, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins_.” —  * Elbridge Gerry* Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You've already been proven wrong once before.  There is *NO *due process involved if you want to exercise a constitutional guarantee.
> 
> You don't have to go and petition courts in order to join a church
> 
> 
> 
> You have not proven anything.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.  Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have proven, from court decisions all the way up to the* United States Supreme Court* that the Right to keep and bear Arms existed before the ratification of the Second Amendment; that it is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence; that you have an *inherent Right* to own firearms.
> 
> You are the one who has proven nothing.  You keep yapping about *state constitutions*.  Well, let us take one and see how the courts ruled:
> 
> "_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. *He does not derive it from the state government*, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "*high powers" delegated directly to the citizen*, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because *it is above the law*, and independent of the law-making power.
> 
> The argument advanced against the constitutionality of this law is, that any discrimination made by the legislature, in punishing the abuse of this right, in regard to a particular weapon, is an impairing of the right of its lawful use_."
> 
> Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> 
> The courts clearly and unequivocally disagree with the snake oil you keep trying to sell. * NOBODY*, not even on your own side, is buying whatever you're selling - unless they just don't understand.  And, to add insult to injury, you have not been able to produce one, single, solitary fact from *ANY *source to back up your claims with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I keep forgetting you are on the right wing; let's try to keep it simpler.
> 
> The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a tyrannical government is shooting and enslaving people, the First Amendment is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.
> 
> I'm not on the right or the left.  I'm me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...


A well regulated militia is necessary to insure the security of a free state... but, the Right to keep and bear Arms already existed.  The government has a vested interest in guaranteeing the Right; however, the Right exists even without the Second Amendment and it is above the law.


----------



## danielpalos

justinacolmena said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on the right wing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Advocating for and insisting on rights for LGBT and other minorities does not under any circumstances put me "on the right wing" of politics in America.
> 
> The right to bear arms is a right.
> 
> Therefore it is lawful to bear arms in the United States.
> 
> To make or enforce any law against bearing arms is to infringe on a right which under the supreme law of the land "shall not be infringed." The Constitution of the United States, including its duly ratified amendments, is the supreme law of the land in the United States. It really is that simple.
> 
> The classes of persons prohibited from bearing arms are overwhelmingly composed of minority citizens.
> 
> Persons arbitrarily considered "felons" or "dishonorable" -- without any adequate standard of due process of law -- the "mentally ill" -- again, without due process of law, and then there are those, in practice always men, subject to the whole slew of allegations generally made by women, those accused of wife-beating misdemeanors, or under one or another of the various sorts of civil restraining order or no-contact order or protective order from some bitch or whore; again, without any adequate standard of due process of law.
> 
> I'm not going to sit here and go off about "men's rights" or anything like that: it's just that the right to bear arms is sometimes seen as stereotypically "masculine" and owning a gun is symbolic of manhood to some men.  Don't get me wrong: plenty of women and girls own firearms; it's just that mainly men are being deprived of that right in what is really a frontal assault on American masculinity, (the mandatory circumcision of boys at birth being part of that.)
> 
> After all, over 90% of U.S. prisoners are men, according to B.O.P.
> 
> BOP Statistics: Inmate Gender
> 
> The inescapable conclusion from this is that the police forces in the United States are Philistines, and that they are cutting hair and putting out eyes. I can only refer to the Holy Scripture on that.
> 
> JUDGES CHAPTER 16 KJV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the
> individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed.
> (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Subject only to the police power?" Ha, ha. Goodness no, they wouldn't take away Al Capone's right to possess firearms, now, would they?
Click to expand...

Nothing but a wall of text?  Nothing you posted is relevant.

Natural rights have nothing to do with out Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> We have a First Amendment and the legislative process; any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point?  You have a First Amendment Right to Freedom of speech, religion, etc.  You don't need the legislature NOR a court order... not even permission to exercise them.  Due Process doesn't come into play unless you *misuse* your Rights or are *denied them via unconstitutional means like prior restraint*.
> 
> You are talking irrelevant nonsense.
> 
> Whenever anyone here purchases a firearm, there is no due process involved.  You buy it, take it home, check the action, put a dab of grease on the locking lugs, rails, etc. and load it up and start shooting holes in the target.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.
> 
> And,
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the _United States_ may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People always have a Right to rebel against tyranny.
> 
> "_Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, i*t is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government*, and to provide new Guards for their future security_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you don't.  You have to exhaust all legals means, not take "matters into your own hands".
> 
> The militia exists to protect Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to exhaust all nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions.  But, a free people are *never *required to submit to a yoke of tyranny.
> 
> *THAT* is one of the foundational principles upon which this Republic was founded.
> 
> Why does the militia exist?  Who should I rely on?  Founding fathers who participated in articulating the Right* OR* danielpalos?
> 
> "_The constitutions of most of our States assert that *all power is inherent in the people*; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;_ … "
> _*Thomas Jefferson * _letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824
> 
> “_To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them_.”  _*Richard Henry Lee* _American Statesman, 1788
> 
> “_The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. *They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them*_.” —    *Tench Coxe*, An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
> 
> “_As the *military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens*, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms_.”  *Tench Coxe*   — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
> 
> “_Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power*_.” *  Noah Webster *— An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
> 
> “[_I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to *defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens*_.”   Alexander Hamilton— The Federalist, No. 29
> 
> “_What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . *Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia*, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins_.” —  * Elbridge Gerry* Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789
Click to expand...

We have well regulated militia that are armed at all times.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have not proven anything.  Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.  Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have proven, from court decisions all the way up to the* United States Supreme Court* that the Right to keep and bear Arms existed before the ratification of the Second Amendment; that it is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence; that you have an *inherent Right* to own firearms.
> 
> You are the one who has proven nothing.  You keep yapping about *state constitutions*.  Well, let us take one and see how the courts ruled:
> 
> "_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. *He does not derive it from the state government*, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "*high powers" delegated directly to the citizen*, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because *it is above the law*, and independent of the law-making power.
> 
> The argument advanced against the constitutionality of this law is, that any discrimination made by the legislature, in punishing the abuse of this right, in regard to a particular weapon, is an impairing of the right of its lawful use_."
> 
> Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> 
> The courts clearly and unequivocally disagree with the snake oil you keep trying to sell. * NOBODY*, not even on your own side, is buying whatever you're selling - unless they just don't understand.  And, to add insult to injury, you have not been able to produce one, single, solitary fact from *ANY *source to back up your claims with.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I keep forgetting you are on the right wing; let's try to keep it simpler.
> 
> The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a tyrannical government is shooting and enslaving people, the First Amendment is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.
> 
> I'm not on the right or the left.  I'm me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia is necessary to insure the security of a free state... but, the Right to keep and bear Arms already existed.  The government has a vested interest in guaranteeing the Right; however, the Right exists even without the Second Amendment and it is above the law.
Click to expand...

No, it didn't.  The right to acquire and possess already existed and is recognized in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on the right wing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Advocating for and insisting on rights for LGBT and other minorities does not under any circumstances put me "on the right wing" of politics in America.
> 
> The right to bear arms is a right.
> 
> Therefore it is lawful to bear arms in the United States.
> 
> To make or enforce any law against bearing arms is to infringe on a right which under the supreme law of the land "shall not be infringed." The Constitution of the United States, including its duly ratified amendments, is the supreme law of the land in the United States. It really is that simple.
> 
> The classes of persons prohibited from bearing arms are overwhelmingly composed of minority citizens.
> 
> Persons arbitrarily considered "felons" or "dishonorable" -- without any adequate standard of due process of law -- the "mentally ill" -- again, without due process of law, and then there are those, in practice always men, subject to the whole slew of allegations generally made by women, those accused of wife-beating misdemeanors, or under one or another of the various sorts of civil restraining order or no-contact order or protective order from some bitch or whore; again, without any adequate standard of due process of law.
> 
> I'm not going to sit here and go off about "men's rights" or anything like that: it's just that the right to bear arms is sometimes seen as stereotypically "masculine" and owning a gun is symbolic of manhood to some men.  Don't get me wrong: plenty of women and girls own firearms; it's just that mainly men are being deprived of that right in what is really a frontal assault on American masculinity, (the mandatory circumcision of boys at birth being part of that.)
> 
> After all, over 90% of U.S. prisoners are men, according to B.O.P.
> 
> BOP Statistics: Inmate Gender
> 
> The inescapable conclusion from this is that the police forces in the United States are Philistines, and that they are cutting hair and putting out eyes. I can only refer to the Holy Scripture on that.
> 
> JUDGES CHAPTER 16 KJV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the
> individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed.
> (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Subject only to the police power?" Ha, ha. Goodness no, they wouldn't take away Al Capone's right to possess firearms, now, would they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but a wall of text?  Nothing you posted is relevant.
> 
> Natural rights have nothing to do with out Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


Just because you cannot read does not make the "_walls of text_" irrelevant.  Criticisms without some form of proof is what is not relevant. * YOU FAIL*.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> What is your point?  You have a First Amendment Right to Freedom of speech, religion, etc.  You don't need the legislature NOR a court order... not even permission to exercise them.  Due Process doesn't come into play unless you *misuse* your Rights or are *denied them via unconstitutional means like prior restraint*.
> 
> You are talking irrelevant nonsense.
> 
> Whenever anyone here purchases a firearm, there is no due process involved.  You buy it, take it home, check the action, put a dab of grease on the locking lugs, rails, etc. and load it up and start shooting holes in the target.
> 
> 
> 
> The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.
> 
> And,
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the _United States_ may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> People always have a Right to rebel against tyranny.
> 
> "_Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, i*t is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government*, and to provide new Guards for their future security_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you don't.  You have to exhaust all legals means, not take "matters into your own hands".
> 
> The militia exists to protect Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to exhaust all nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions.  But, a free people are *never *required to submit to a yoke of tyranny.
> 
> *THAT* is one of the foundational principles upon which this Republic was founded.
> 
> Why does the militia exist?  Who should I rely on?  Founding fathers who participated in articulating the Right* OR* danielpalos?
> 
> "_The constitutions of most of our States assert that *all power is inherent in the people*; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;_ … "
> _*Thomas Jefferson * _letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824
> 
> “_To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them_.”  _*Richard Henry Lee* _American Statesman, 1788
> 
> “_The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. *They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them*_.” —    *Tench Coxe*, An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
> 
> “_As the *military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens*, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms_.”  *Tench Coxe*   — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
> 
> “_Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power*_.” *  Noah Webster *— An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
> 
> “[_I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to *defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens*_.”   Alexander Hamilton— The Federalist, No. 29
> 
> “_What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . *Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia*, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins_.” —  * Elbridge Gerry* Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have well regulated militia that are armed at all times.
Click to expand...



A well armed citizenry is the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you on the right wing?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No. Advocating for and insisting on rights for LGBT and other minorities does not under any circumstances put me "on the right wing" of politics in America.
> 
> The right to bear arms is a right.
> 
> Therefore it is lawful to bear arms in the United States.
> 
> To make or enforce any law against bearing arms is to infringe on a right which under the supreme law of the land "shall not be infringed." The Constitution of the United States, including its duly ratified amendments, is the supreme law of the land in the United States. It really is that simple.
> 
> The classes of persons prohibited from bearing arms are overwhelmingly composed of minority citizens.
> 
> Persons arbitrarily considered "felons" or "dishonorable" -- without any adequate standard of due process of law -- the "mentally ill" -- again, without due process of law, and then there are those, in practice always men, subject to the whole slew of allegations generally made by women, those accused of wife-beating misdemeanors, or under one or another of the various sorts of civil restraining order or no-contact order or protective order from some bitch or whore; again, without any adequate standard of due process of law.
> 
> I'm not going to sit here and go off about "men's rights" or anything like that: it's just that the right to bear arms is sometimes seen as stereotypically "masculine" and owning a gun is symbolic of manhood to some men.  Don't get me wrong: plenty of women and girls own firearms; it's just that mainly men are being deprived of that right in what is really a frontal assault on American masculinity, (the mandatory circumcision of boys at birth being part of that.)
> 
> After all, over 90% of U.S. prisoners are men, according to B.O.P.
> 
> BOP Statistics: Inmate Gender
> 
> The inescapable conclusion from this is that the police forces in the United States are Philistines, and that they are cutting hair and putting out eyes. I can only refer to the Holy Scripture on that.
> 
> JUDGES CHAPTER 16 KJV
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SECTION 22. RIGHT TO ARMS
> Subject only to the police power, the right of the
> individual citizen to keep and bear arms shall not be
> infringed.
> (Source: Illinois Constitution.)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Subject only to the police power?" Ha, ha. Goodness no, they wouldn't take away Al Capone's right to possess firearms, now, would they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Nothing but a wall of text?  Nothing you posted is relevant.
> 
> Natural rights have nothing to do with out Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Just because you cannot read does not make the "_walls of text_" irrelevant.  Criticisms without some form of proof is what is not relevant. * YOU FAIL*.
Click to expand...

Nothing you posted is relevant.

Natural rights have nothing to do with our Second Amendment.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have proven, from court decisions all the way up to the* United States Supreme Court* that the Right to keep and bear Arms existed before the ratification of the Second Amendment; that it is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence; that you have an *inherent Right* to own firearms.
> 
> You are the one who has proven nothing.  You keep yapping about *state constitutions*.  Well, let us take one and see how the courts ruled:
> 
> "_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in the lawful defense of himself or the state, is absolute. *He does not derive it from the state government*, but directly from the sovereign convention of the people that framed the state government. It is one of the "*high powers" delegated directly to the citizen*, and "is excepted out of the general powers of government." A law cannot be passed (p.402)to infringe upon or impair it, because *it is above the law*, and independent of the law-making power.
> 
> The argument advanced against the constitutionality of this law is, that any discrimination made by the legislature, in punishing the abuse of this right, in regard to a particular weapon, is an impairing of the right of its lawful use_."
> 
> Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> 
> The courts clearly and unequivocally disagree with the snake oil you keep trying to sell. * NOBODY*, not even on your own side, is buying whatever you're selling - unless they just don't understand.  And, to add insult to injury, you have not been able to produce one, single, solitary fact from *ANY *source to back up your claims with.
> 
> 
> 
> I keep forgetting you are on the right wing; let's try to keep it simpler.
> 
> The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When a tyrannical government is shooting and enslaving people, the First Amendment is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.
> 
> I'm not on the right or the left.  I'm me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia is necessary to insure the security of a free state... but, the Right to keep and bear Arms already existed.  The government has a vested interest in guaranteeing the Right; however, the Right exists even without the Second Amendment and it is above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it didn't.  The right to acquire and possess already existed and is recognized in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
Click to expand...


What in the Hell is wrong with you?  Did you eat a bowl of stupid?  Get your head out of your ass and quit repeating the same thing over and over.  Provide something besides a silly ass circular argument that is not supported in history or law.

1)  The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that *predates the Constitution.  *The RIGHT to keep and bear Arms existed before the Constitution and is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence

2)  Forget the Constitution.  You don't need the Second Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms.  The RIGHT exists without it

3)  The word "_secure_" as it relates to state governments simply means to insure the RIGHT.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.
> 
> And,
> 
> Only well regulated militias of the _United States_ may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> People always have a Right to rebel against tyranny.
> 
> "_Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, i*t is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government*, and to provide new Guards for their future security_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, you don't.  You have to exhaust all legals means, not take "matters into your own hands".
> 
> The militia exists to protect Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> You have to exhaust all nonviolent legal and political avenues of redress before resorting to extraordinary actions.  But, a free people are *never *required to submit to a yoke of tyranny.
> 
> *THAT* is one of the foundational principles upon which this Republic was founded.
> 
> Why does the militia exist?  Who should I rely on?  Founding fathers who participated in articulating the Right* OR* danielpalos?
> 
> "_The constitutions of most of our States assert that *all power is inherent in the people*; that … it is their right and duty to be at all times armed;_ … "
> _*Thomas Jefferson * _letter to Justice John Cartwright, June 5, 1824
> 
> “_To preserve liberty, it is essential that the whole body of the people always possess arms and be taught alike, especially when young, how to use them_.”  _*Richard Henry Lee* _American Statesman, 1788
> 
> “_The militia, who are in fact the effective part of the people at large, will render many troops quite unnecessary. *They will form a powerful check upon the regular troops, and will generally be sufficient to over-awe them*_.” —    *Tench Coxe*, An American Citizen, Oct. 21, 1787
> 
> “_As the *military forces which must occasionally be raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens*, the people are confirmed by the next article (of amendment) in their right to keep and bear their private arms_.”  *Tench Coxe*   — Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789
> 
> “_Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. *The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops that can be, on any pretence, raised in the United States. A military force, at the command of Congress, can execute no laws, but such as the people perceive to be just and constitutional; for they will possess the power*_.” *  Noah Webster *— An Examination of The Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, Philadelphia, 1787
> 
> “[_I]f circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude, that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to *defend their rights and those of their fellow citizens*_.”   Alexander Hamilton— The Federalist, No. 29
> 
> “_What, sir, is the use of militia? It is to prevent the establishment of a standing army, the bane of liberty. . . *Whenever Government means to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia*, in order to raise a standing army upon its ruins_.” —  * Elbridge Gerry* Debate, U.S. House of Representatives, August 17, 1789
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> We have well regulated militia that are armed at all times.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> A well armed citizenry is the militia.
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I keep forgetting you are on the right wing; let's try to keep it simpler.
> 
> The South did not have a right to rebel against "perceived tyranny"; we have a First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When a tyrannical government is shooting and enslaving people, the First Amendment is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.
> 
> I'm not on the right or the left.  I'm me.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia is necessary to insure the security of a free state... but, the Right to keep and bear Arms already existed.  The government has a vested interest in guaranteeing the Right; however, the Right exists even without the Second Amendment and it is above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it didn't.  The right to acquire and possess already existed and is recognized in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the Hell is wrong with you?  Did you eat a bowl of stupid?  Get your head out of your ass and quit repeating the same thing over and over.  Provide something besides a silly ass circular argument that is not supported in history or law.
> 
> 1)  The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that *predates the Constitution.  *The RIGHT to keep and bear Arms existed before the Constitution and is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence
> 
> 2)  Forget the Constitution.  You don't need the Second Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms.  The RIGHT exists without it
> 
> 3)  The word "_secure_" as it relates to state governments simply means to insure the RIGHT.
Click to expand...

The concept of natural rights predates our Constitutions. Concepts may or may not be enforcible in a open court; or applied consistently without recourse to social justice.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> When a tyrannical government is shooting and enslaving people, the First Amendment is about as useless as tits on a boar hog.
> 
> I'm not on the right or the left.  I'm me.
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia is necessary to insure the security of a free state... but, the Right to keep and bear Arms already existed.  The government has a vested interest in guaranteeing the Right; however, the Right exists even without the Second Amendment and it is above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it didn't.  The right to acquire and possess already existed and is recognized in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the Hell is wrong with you?  Did you eat a bowl of stupid?  Get your head out of your ass and quit repeating the same thing over and over.  Provide something besides a silly ass circular argument that is not supported in history or law.
> 
> 1)  The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that *predates the Constitution.  *The RIGHT to keep and bear Arms existed before the Constitution and is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence
> 
> 2)  Forget the Constitution.  You don't need the Second Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms.  The RIGHT exists without it
> 
> 3)  The word "_secure_" as it relates to state governments simply means to insure the RIGHT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The concept of natural rights predates our Constitutions. Concepts may or may not be enforcible in a open court; or applied consistently without recourse to social justice.
Click to expand...



What in the Hell is wrong with you? Did you eat a bowl of stupid? Get your head out of your ass and quit repeating the same thing over and over. Provide something besides a silly ass circular argument that is not supported in history or law.

1) The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that *predates the Constitution. *The RIGHT to keep and bear Arms existed before the Constitution and is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence

2) Forget the Constitution. You don't need the Second Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. The RIGHT exists without it

3) The word "_secure_" as it relates to state governments simply means to insure the RIGHT.

If you are going to post the same nonsensical posts over and over, I'm going to keep giving you the same response over and over.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated militia is necessary to insure the security of a free state... but, the Right to keep and bear Arms already existed.  The government has a vested interest in guaranteeing the Right; however, the Right exists even without the Second Amendment and it is above the law.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, it didn't.  The right to acquire and possess already existed and is recognized in State Constitutions, not our Second Amendment.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What in the Hell is wrong with you?  Did you eat a bowl of stupid?  Get your head out of your ass and quit repeating the same thing over and over.  Provide something besides a silly ass circular argument that is not supported in history or law.
> 
> 1)  The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that *predates the Constitution.  *The RIGHT to keep and bear Arms existed before the Constitution and is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence
> 
> 2)  Forget the Constitution.  You don't need the Second Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms.  The RIGHT exists without it
> 
> 3)  The word "_secure_" as it relates to state governments simply means to insure the RIGHT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The concept of natural rights predates our Constitutions. Concepts may or may not be enforcible in a open court; or applied consistently without recourse to social justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> What in the Hell is wrong with you? Did you eat a bowl of stupid? Get your head out of your ass and quit repeating the same thing over and over. Provide something besides a silly ass circular argument that is not supported in history or law.
> 
> 1) The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right that *predates the Constitution. *The RIGHT to keep and bear Arms existed before the Constitution and is not dependent upon that instrument for its existence
> 
> 2) Forget the Constitution. You don't need the Second Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. The RIGHT exists without it
> 
> 3) The word "_secure_" as it relates to state governments simply means to insure the RIGHT.
> 
> If you are going to post the same nonsensical posts over and over, I'm going to keep giving you the same response over and over.
Click to expand...

Concepts may or may not be enforcible in a open court; or applied consistently without recourse to social justice.


----------



## Humorme

For the benefit of other posters:

danielpalos has been trying to sell nonsense for a number of years.  His arguments try to hijack gun threads without making a relevant point... or *any* point for that matter.

Each of you go to the bathroom every day and take a dump without a license from the government; without anybody's permission; without worrying about "due process" or anything else.  Ditto for when you buy a book, join a church, criticize your elected leaders, own a firearm, or buy a house.

There is no "due process" involved in the normal course of business.  Due Process comes into play when crimes are committed or maybe someone is trying to circumvent your Rights.

The entire Bill of Rights is a limitation on government.  Owning, bearing and using a firearm is not related to the Second Amendment,* except* to the extent that the government is prohibited from infringing upon your Rights.

State governments through their courts have ruled on the Right to keep and bear Arms.  It's perfectly legal to own a firearm for your personal use, safety, and to preserve your Freedoms and Liberties.  When danielpalos tries to claim your rights are secured by state constitutions, he seems to be implying that the state grants you a right... they most assuredly do not.  

The governor in your state can call up the militia in an emergency and that force constitutes all those citizens who have firearms and answer the call.  But, that power in no way, shape, fashion, or form involves denying the* individual* the Right to keep and bear Arms.  It's a separate issue.  *YOU AND YOU ALONE "SECURE" THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS(AS DANIELPALOS USES THE TERM) IF / WHEN TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENTS SEEK TO DISARM YOU*.


----------



## danielpalos

You don't know what you are talking; you cannot exclude the concept of social justice, in our Republic.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> You don't know what you are talking; you cannot exclude the concept of social justice, in our Republic.



You don't have a clue what you're talking about.  Social justice don't have squat to do with *unalienable* Rights.  

EVERYTHING you've been talking about is related to crimes and torts, *not *Rights.  You've always had one problem.  You post the same nonsensical shit over and over and over and over and over and over... *AND NONE OF IT ADDRESS THE ISSUES AT HAND!!!!!
*
Fact is, you've never made a post that was relevant to the gun control debate.  You keep yapping about something not related to the infringements on gun owners as if there is something people can take away from it.  Your feeble ass attempt to conflate unrelated issues and create strawmen while creating imaginary issues to pit your strawmen against doesn't fool anyone with an IQ bigger than their shoe size.

Pretending to act as if I made some objection to your imaginary issues is a joke; it's a waste of bandwidth; it insults the intelligence of your fellow posters and most of them can see that you have no factual information and relevant opinions to share.

The government has no business interfering with the Second Amendment Rights of gun owners and today's takeaway is simply this:

Tomorrow, shipping of the slide fire stocks resumes and those who want one before round two of this saga gets under way will be buying them.  So, all of your irrelevant jibber jabber was all for naught.


----------



## danielpalos

Social justice has to do with our evolving civil rights.  You are simply clueless and Causeless.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Social justice has to do with our evolving civil rights.  You are simply clueless and Causeless.



Back to your old worn out canard I see.  If anyone is clueless, it is definitely YOU.  

Social justice don't have squat to do with your Rights.  

Social justice is defined as followed:

"_a state or doctrine of egalitarianism_"

Definition of SOCIAL JUSTICE

_Egalitarianism is "a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs
:a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.

_*NONE OF THAT IS RELATIVE TO YOUR INHERENT, ABSOLUTE, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, NATURAL RIGHTS EXCEPT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS AGREED TO PROTECT THEM.*


----------



## Humorme

Humorme said:


> For the benefit of other posters:
> 
> danielpalos has been trying to sell nonsense for a number of years.  His arguments try to hijack gun threads without making a relevant point... or *any* point for that matter.
> 
> Each of you go to the bathroom every day and take a dump without a license from the government; without anybody's permission; without worrying about "due process" or anything else.  Ditto for when you buy a book, join a church, criticize your elected leaders, own a firearm, or buy a house.
> 
> There is no "due process" involved in the normal course of business.  Due Process comes into play when crimes are committed or maybe someone is trying to circumvent your Rights.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights is a limitation on government.  Owning, bearing and using a firearm is not related to the Second Amendment,* except* to the extent that the government is prohibited from infringing upon your Rights.
> 
> State governments through their courts have ruled on the Right to keep and bear Arms.  It's perfectly legal to own a firearm for your personal use, safety, and to preserve your Freedoms and Liberties.  When danielpalos tries to claim your rights are secured by state constitutions, he seems to be implying that the state grants you a right... they most assuredly do not.
> 
> The governor in your state can call up the militia in an emergency and that force constitutes all those citizens who have firearms and answer the call.  But, that power in no way, shape, fashion, or form involves denying the* individual* the Right to keep and bear Arms.  It's a separate issue.  *YOU AND YOU ALONE "SECURE" THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS(AS DANIELPALOS USES THE TERM) IF / WHEN TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENTS SEEK TO DISARM YOU*.



If the board troll is going to keep repeating the same post over and over, so can I.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social justice has to do with our evolving civil rights.  You are simply clueless and Causeless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Back to your old worn out canard I see.  If anyone is clueless, it is definitely YOU.
> 
> Social justice don't have squat to do with your Rights.
> 
> Social justice is defined as followed:
> 
> "_a state or doctrine of egalitarianism_"
> 
> Definition of SOCIAL JUSTICE
> 
> _Egalitarianism is "a belief in human equality especially with respect to social, political, and economic affairs
> :a social philosophy advocating the removal of inequalities among people.
> 
> _*NONE OF THAT IS RELATIVE TO YOUR INHERENT, ABSOLUTE, UNALIENABLE, GOD GIVEN, NATURAL RIGHTS EXCEPT THAT THE GOVERNMENT HAS AGREED TO PROTECT THEM.*
Click to expand...

Social justice has to do with our evolving civil rights. You are simply clueless and Causeless.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the benefit of other posters:
> 
> danielpalos has been trying to sell nonsense for a number of years.  His arguments try to hijack gun threads without making a relevant point... or *any* point for that matter.
> 
> Each of you go to the bathroom every day and take a dump without a license from the government; without anybody's permission; without worrying about "due process" or anything else.  Ditto for when you buy a book, join a church, criticize your elected leaders, own a firearm, or buy a house.
> 
> There is no "due process" involved in the normal course of business.  Due Process comes into play when crimes are committed or maybe someone is trying to circumvent your Rights.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights is a limitation on government.  Owning, bearing and using a firearm is not related to the Second Amendment,* except* to the extent that the government is prohibited from infringing upon your Rights.
> 
> State governments through their courts have ruled on the Right to keep and bear Arms.  It's perfectly legal to own a firearm for your personal use, safety, and to preserve your Freedoms and Liberties.  When danielpalos tries to claim your rights are secured by state constitutions, he seems to be implying that the state grants you a right... they most assuredly do not.
> 
> The governor in your state can call up the militia in an emergency and that force constitutes all those citizens who have firearms and answer the call.  But, that power in no way, shape, fashion, or form involves denying the* individual* the Right to keep and bear Arms.  It's a separate issue.  *YOU AND YOU ALONE "SECURE" THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS(AS DANIELPALOS USES THE TERM) IF / WHEN TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENTS SEEK TO DISARM YOU*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the board troll is going to keep repeating the same post over and over, so can I.
Click to expand...

The People are the militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed as a result.

There is no such protection for the unorganized militia.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the benefit of other posters:
> 
> danielpalos has been trying to sell nonsense for a number of years.  His arguments try to hijack gun threads without making a relevant point... or *any* point for that matter.
> 
> Each of you go to the bathroom every day and take a dump without a license from the government; without anybody's permission; without worrying about "due process" or anything else.  Ditto for when you buy a book, join a church, criticize your elected leaders, own a firearm, or buy a house.
> 
> There is no "due process" involved in the normal course of business.  Due Process comes into play when crimes are committed or maybe someone is trying to circumvent your Rights.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights is a limitation on government.  Owning, bearing and using a firearm is not related to the Second Amendment,* except* to the extent that the government is prohibited from infringing upon your Rights.
> 
> State governments through their courts have ruled on the Right to keep and bear Arms.  It's perfectly legal to own a firearm for your personal use, safety, and to preserve your Freedoms and Liberties.  When danielpalos tries to claim your rights are secured by state constitutions, he seems to be implying that the state grants you a right... they most assuredly do not.
> 
> The governor in your state can call up the militia in an emergency and that force constitutes all those citizens who have firearms and answer the call.  But, that power in no way, shape, fashion, or form involves denying the* individual* the Right to keep and bear Arms.  It's a separate issue.  *YOU AND YOU ALONE "SECURE" THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS(AS DANIELPALOS USES THE TERM) IF / WHEN TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENTS SEEK TO DISARM YOU*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the board troll is going to keep repeating the same post over and over, so can I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed as a result.
> 
> There is no such protection for the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...



danielpalos,

You talk in a vocabulary that only you understand.  You've preached the same nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit to the point that most people don't want to communicate with you in any way, shape, fashion, or form..

The unorganized militia needs no "_protection_" from the government.  You seem to be the only person on the entire Internet that does not understand the basics of American Civics 101.  Government does not grant Rights. 

Having read your idiocy for a number of years, I'd like to put the shoe on the other foot and have you explain to us what *YOUR* cause is. You like telling people how clueless and causeless they are -  as if you're the only swinging Richard on the face of the earth competent enough to tell others what they believe in. 

What is it *YOU* believe in?  Do you think that government grants you your Rights and you are beholden to them?  Do you really think that one must worship the government?  If you're going to judge everybody on this earth and claim that you're some kind of God (albeit indirectly) "_clue_" us all in on the Holy Word according to danielpalos.


----------



## danielpalos

just right wing legal fantasy, right winger?

Only one subset of the militia is necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed for that purpose.


----------



## Humorme

1 -  The people have a Right to keep and bear Arms

2 -  The Right to keep and bear Arms is NOT a Right granted by the Constitution, according to the United States Supreme Court

3  -  The *whole people*, not just the military constitute the militia according to more court rulings than I can cite

4 -  The unorganized militia is composed of every able bodied person *NOT* in the regular militia who declares their intent to be in the militia

5 -  Whether you are in the militia or not, you have a constitutionally guaranteed Right to keep and bear Arms

6 - At the STATE level, the states have ruled that the Right is above the law; that it absolute; that you don't even have to be in the militia in order to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms

7 -  If you have a firearm and the country needs you as a last line of defense and / or to prevent tyranny in government, you have the Right to keep and bear Arms AND a Right, Duty, and Obligation to defend the country and our Freedoms / Liberties

8 -  You need not be in the militia to own a firearm

9 - Since military style firearms are the the tools most used to insure the security of a FREE STATE, they are the most protected FIREARMS 

10 -  Having an unqualified Right to keep and bear Arms, the whole bogus argument regarding the *myth *that states secure your Rights is unfounded and without any proof.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> just right wing legal fantasy, right winger?
> 
> Only one subset of the militia is necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed for that purpose.



Quit pecking your keyboard you flaming communist and answer the freaking questions:

You talk in a vocabulary that only you understand. You've preached the same nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit to the point that most people don't want to communicate with you in any way, shape, fashion, or form..

The unorganized militia needs no "_protection_" from the government. You seem to be the only person on the entire Internet that does not understand the basics of American Civics 101. Government does not grant Rights. 

Having read your idiocy for a number of years, I'd like to put the shoe on the other foot and have you explain to us what *YOUR* cause is. You like telling people how clueless and causeless they are - as if you're the only swinging Richard on the face of the earth competent enough to tell others what they believe in. 

What is it *YOU* believe in? Do you think that government grants you your Rights and you are beholden to them? Do you really think that one must worship the government? If you're going to judge everybody on this earth and claim that you're some kind of God (albeit indirectly) "_clue_" us all in on the Holy Word according to danielpalos.


----------



## danielpalos

The People are the Militia.

States have State militias and State militias have commanders in chief of the militia of the State, not just the organized, State militia.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> The People are the Militia.
> 
> States have State militias and State militias have commanders in chief of the militia of the State, not just the organized, State militia.



Let me ask you again:

You talk in a vocabulary that only you understand. You've preached the same nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit to the point that most people don't want to communicate with you in any way, shape, fashion, or form..

The unorganized militia needs no "_protection_" from the government. You seem to be the only person on the entire Internet that does not understand the basics of American Civics 101. Government does not grant Rights.

Having read your idiocy for a number of years, I'd like to put the shoe on the other foot and have you explain to us what *YOUR* cause is. You like telling people how clueless and causeless they are - as if you're the only swinging Richard on the face of the earth competent enough to tell others what they believe in.

What is it *YOU* believe in? Do you think that government grants you your Rights and you are beholden to them? Do you really think that one must worship the government? If you're going to judge everybody on this earth and claim that you're some kind of God (albeit indirectly) "_clue_" us all in on the Holy Word according to danielpalos.

You shouldn't try bullshitting the people on this thread.  I belong to the oldest and most continuous state militia in the United States... and have three decades of service under my belt.  *You don't know what you're talking about*.

What you just said is absolute nonsense.  It makes zero sense whether you have three decades of militia experience or never heard of one.


----------



## danielpalos

It is about the security of a free State.

States have State militias and State militias have commanders in chief of the militia of the State, not just the organized, State militia.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> It is about the security of a free State.
> 
> States have State militias and State militias have commanders in chief of the militia of the State, not just the organized, State militia.



Why don't you STFU, answer my questions or just admit that you're blowing smoke out your ass because you don't have a legitimate point to argue?

You haven't answered the questions because you're full of shit.

States have militias that are the *government's militia*.  Civilians also have militias that protect the citizenry from the over-reach of the state.  A government militia does not protect the interests, Liberties or the Freedoms of the *whole people*.


----------



## Humorme

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> States have State militias and State militias have commanders in chief of the militia of the State, not just the organized, State militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you again:
> 
> You talk in a vocabulary that only you understand. You've preached the same nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit to the point that most people don't want to communicate with you in any way, shape, fashion, or form..
> 
> The unorganized militia needs no "_protection_" from the government. You seem to be the only person on the entire Internet that does not understand the basics of American Civics 101. Government does not grant Rights.
> 
> Having read your idiocy for a number of years, I'd like to put the shoe on the other foot and have you explain to us what *YOUR* cause is. You like telling people how clueless and causeless they are - as if you're the only swinging Richard on the face of the earth competent enough to tell others what they believe in.
> 
> What is it *YOU* believe in? Do you think that government grants you your Rights and you are beholden to them? Do you really think that one must worship the government? If you're going to judge everybody on this earth and claim that you're some kind of God (albeit indirectly) "_clue_" us all in on the Holy Word according to danielpalos.
> 
> You shouldn't try bullshitting the people on this thread.  I belong to the oldest and most continuous state militia in the United States... and have three decades of service under my belt.  *You don't know what you're talking about*.
> 
> What you just said is absolute nonsense.  It makes zero sense whether you have three decades of militia experience or never heard of one.
Click to expand...


danielpalos continues to try and cloud the issues with total nonsense, but he cannot and will not answer the questions asked of him.  He's lying and making stuff up as he goes along.

If everybody else is clueless and causeless... what, exactly, is his cause...?????... I mean besides trolling people and acting like a dumb ass???


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is about the security of a free State.
> 
> States have State militias and State militias have commanders in chief of the militia of the State, not just the organized, State militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Why don't you STFU, answer my questions or just admit that you're blowing smoke out your ass because you don't have a legitimate point to argue?
> 
> You haven't answered the questions because you're full of shit.
> 
> States have militias that are the *government's militia*.  Civilians also have militias that protect the citizenry from the over-reach of the state.  A government militia does not protect the interests, Liberties or the Freedoms of the *whole people*.
Click to expand...

You are confusing natural rights with the obligation of the militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> States have State militias and State militias have commanders in chief of the militia of the State, not just the organized, State militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you again:
> 
> You talk in a vocabulary that only you understand. You've preached the same nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit to the point that most people don't want to communicate with you in any way, shape, fashion, or form..
> 
> The unorganized militia needs no "_protection_" from the government. You seem to be the only person on the entire Internet that does not understand the basics of American Civics 101. Government does not grant Rights.
> 
> Having read your idiocy for a number of years, I'd like to put the shoe on the other foot and have you explain to us what *YOUR* cause is. You like telling people how clueless and causeless they are - as if you're the only swinging Richard on the face of the earth competent enough to tell others what they believe in.
> 
> What is it *YOU* believe in? Do you think that government grants you your Rights and you are beholden to them? Do you really think that one must worship the government? If you're going to judge everybody on this earth and claim that you're some kind of God (albeit indirectly) "_clue_" us all in on the Holy Word according to danielpalos.
> 
> You shouldn't try bullshitting the people on this thread.  I belong to the oldest and most continuous state militia in the United States... and have three decades of service under my belt.  *You don't know what you're talking about*.
> 
> What you just said is absolute nonsense.  It makes zero sense whether you have three decades of militia experience or never heard of one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos continues to try and cloud the issues with total nonsense, but he cannot and will not answer the questions asked of him.  He's lying and making stuff up as he goes along.
> 
> If everybody else is clueless and causeless... what, exactly, is his cause...?????... I mean besides trolling people and acting like a dumb ass???
Click to expand...

you simply misunderstand the concepts.  that is all.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> States have State militias and State militias have commanders in chief of the militia of the State, not just the organized, State militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you again:
> 
> You talk in a vocabulary that only you understand. You've preached the same nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit to the point that most people don't want to communicate with you in any way, shape, fashion, or form..
> 
> The unorganized militia needs no "_protection_" from the government. You seem to be the only person on the entire Internet that does not understand the basics of American Civics 101. Government does not grant Rights.
> 
> Having read your idiocy for a number of years, I'd like to put the shoe on the other foot and have you explain to us what *YOUR* cause is. You like telling people how clueless and causeless they are - as if you're the only swinging Richard on the face of the earth competent enough to tell others what they believe in.
> 
> What is it *YOU* believe in? Do you think that government grants you your Rights and you are beholden to them? Do you really think that one must worship the government? If you're going to judge everybody on this earth and claim that you're some kind of God (albeit indirectly) "_clue_" us all in on the Holy Word according to danielpalos.
> 
> You shouldn't try bullshitting the people on this thread.  I belong to the oldest and most continuous state militia in the United States... and have three decades of service under my belt.  *You don't know what you're talking about*.
> 
> What you just said is absolute nonsense.  It makes zero sense whether you have three decades of militia experience or never heard of one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos continues to try and cloud the issues with total nonsense, but he cannot and will not answer the questions asked of him.  He's lying and making stuff up as he goes along.
> 
> If everybody else is clueless and causeless... what, exactly, is his cause...?????... I mean besides trolling people and acting like a dumb ass???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you simply misunderstand the concepts.  that is all.
Click to expand...


You are simply misunderstanding that the rest of the people reading this realize that you are fake, phony, poseur that gets off masturbating and telling his fellow posters they are idiots because they don't get your nonsensical drivel.

Let me tell you a concept that *everybody* here understands.  You are trolling this thread and you're beginning to look like a total dumb ass.  So, in my next post, I will ask you the questions again.


----------



## Humorme

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> For the benefit of other posters:
> 
> danielpalos has been trying to sell nonsense for a number of years.  His arguments try to hijack gun threads without making a relevant point... or *any* point for that matter.
> 
> Each of you go to the bathroom every day and take a dump without a license from the government; without anybody's permission; without worrying about "due process" or anything else.  Ditto for when you buy a book, join a church, criticize your elected leaders, own a firearm, or buy a house.
> 
> There is no "due process" involved in the normal course of business.  Due Process comes into play when crimes are committed or maybe someone is trying to circumvent your Rights.
> 
> The entire Bill of Rights is a limitation on government.  Owning, bearing and using a firearm is not related to the Second Amendment,* except* to the extent that the government is prohibited from infringing upon your Rights.
> 
> State governments through their courts have ruled on the Right to keep and bear Arms.  It's perfectly legal to own a firearm for your personal use, safety, and to preserve your Freedoms and Liberties.  When danielpalos tries to claim your rights are secured by state constitutions, he seems to be implying that the state grants you a right... they most assuredly do not.
> 
> The governor in your state can call up the militia in an emergency and that force constitutes all those citizens who have firearms and answer the call.  But, that power in no way, shape, fashion, or form involves denying the* individual* the Right to keep and bear Arms.  It's a separate issue.  *YOU AND YOU ALONE "SECURE" THE RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS(AS DANIELPALOS USES THE TERM) IF / WHEN TYRANNICAL GOVERNMENTS SEEK TO DISARM YOU*.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the board troll is going to keep repeating the same post over and over, so can I.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State and shall not be Infringed as a result.
> 
> There is no such protection for the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos,
> 
> You talk in a vocabulary that only you understand.  You've preached the same nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit to the point that most people don't want to communicate with you in any way, shape, fashion, or form..
> 
> The unorganized militia needs no "_protection_" from the government.  You seem to be the only person on the entire Internet that does not understand the basics of American Civics 101.  Government does not grant Rights.
> 
> Having read your idiocy for a number of years, I'd like to put the shoe on the other foot and have you explain to us what *YOUR* cause is. You like telling people how clueless and causeless they are -  as if you're the only swinging Richard on the face of the earth competent enough to tell others what they believe in.
> 
> What is it *YOU* believe in?  Do you think that government grants you your Rights and you are beholden to them?  Do you really think that one must worship the government?  If you're going to judge everybody on this earth and claim that you're some kind of God (albeit indirectly) "_clue_" us all in on the Holy Word according to danielpalos.
Click to expand...



danielpalos,

You talk in a vocabulary that only you understand. You've preached the same nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit to the point that most people don't want to communicate with you in any way, shape, fashion, or form..

The unorganized militia needs no "_protection_" from the government. You seem to be the only person on the entire Internet that does not understand the basics of American Civics 101. Government does not grant Rights. 

Having read your idiocy for a number of years, I'd like to put the shoe on the other foot and have you explain to us what *YOUR* cause is. You like telling people how clueless and causeless they are - as if you're the only swinging Richard on the face of the earth competent enough to tell others what they believe in. 

What is it *YOU* believe in? Do you think that government grants you your Rights and you are beholden to them? Do you really think that one must worship the government? If you're going to judge everybody on this earth and claim that you're some kind of God (albeit indirectly) "_clue_" us all in on the Holy Word according to danielpalos.


Those are questions, danielpalos.  If you don't understand the Constitution or the laws, you should just say sorry and move on.  Surely your inflated ego can handle a couple of questions, can't it?


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> States have State militias and State militias have commanders in chief of the militia of the State, not just the organized, State militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you again:
> 
> You talk in a vocabulary that only you understand. You've preached the same nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit to the point that most people don't want to communicate with you in any way, shape, fashion, or form..
> 
> The unorganized militia needs no "_protection_" from the government. You seem to be the only person on the entire Internet that does not understand the basics of American Civics 101. Government does not grant Rights.
> 
> Having read your idiocy for a number of years, I'd like to put the shoe on the other foot and have you explain to us what *YOUR* cause is. You like telling people how clueless and causeless they are - as if you're the only swinging Richard on the face of the earth competent enough to tell others what they believe in.
> 
> What is it *YOU* believe in? Do you think that government grants you your Rights and you are beholden to them? Do you really think that one must worship the government? If you're going to judge everybody on this earth and claim that you're some kind of God (albeit indirectly) "_clue_" us all in on the Holy Word according to danielpalos.
> 
> You shouldn't try bullshitting the people on this thread.  I belong to the oldest and most continuous state militia in the United States... and have three decades of service under my belt.  *You don't know what you're talking about*.
> 
> What you just said is absolute nonsense.  It makes zero sense whether you have three decades of militia experience or never heard of one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos continues to try and cloud the issues with total nonsense, but he cannot and will not answer the questions asked of him.  He's lying and making stuff up as he goes along.
> 
> If everybody else is clueless and causeless... what, exactly, is his cause...?????... I mean besides trolling people and acting like a dumb ass???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you simply misunderstand the concepts.  that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply misunderstanding that the rest of the people reading this realize that you are fake, phony, poseur that gets off masturbating and telling his fellow posters they are idiots because they don't get your nonsensical drivel.
> 
> Let me tell you a concept that *everybody* here understands.  You are trolling this thread and you're beginning to look like a total dumb ass.  So, in my next post, I will ask you the questions again.
Click to expand...

dude, you have nothing but rhetoric, not even propaganda.

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.

Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.

The problem gun lovers have, is that they cannot even convince their own State legislators, that they can be responsible with their guns.

State legislators make laws regarding the Health and the Safety, of the People of the State.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the Militia.
> 
> States have State militias and State militias have commanders in chief of the militia of the State, not just the organized, State militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you again:
> 
> You talk in a vocabulary that only you understand. You've preached the same nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit to the point that most people don't want to communicate with you in any way, shape, fashion, or form..
> 
> The unorganized militia needs no "_protection_" from the government. You seem to be the only person on the entire Internet that does not understand the basics of American Civics 101. Government does not grant Rights.
> 
> Having read your idiocy for a number of years, I'd like to put the shoe on the other foot and have you explain to us what *YOUR* cause is. You like telling people how clueless and causeless they are - as if you're the only swinging Richard on the face of the earth competent enough to tell others what they believe in.
> 
> What is it *YOU* believe in? Do you think that government grants you your Rights and you are beholden to them? Do you really think that one must worship the government? If you're going to judge everybody on this earth and claim that you're some kind of God (albeit indirectly) "_clue_" us all in on the Holy Word according to danielpalos.
> 
> You shouldn't try bullshitting the people on this thread.  I belong to the oldest and most continuous state militia in the United States... and have three decades of service under my belt.  *You don't know what you're talking about*.
> 
> What you just said is absolute nonsense.  It makes zero sense whether you have three decades of militia experience or never heard of one.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos continues to try and cloud the issues with total nonsense, but he cannot and will not answer the questions asked of him.  He's lying and making stuff up as he goes along.
> 
> If everybody else is clueless and causeless... what, exactly, is his cause...?????... I mean besides trolling people and acting like a dumb ass???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you simply misunderstand the concepts.  that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply misunderstanding that the rest of the people reading this realize that you are fake, phony, poseur that gets off masturbating and telling his fellow posters they are idiots because they don't get your nonsensical drivel.
> 
> Let me tell you a concept that *everybody* here understands.  You are trolling this thread and you're beginning to look like a total dumb ass.  So, in my next post, I will ask you the questions again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you have nothing but rhetoric, not even propaganda.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.
> 
> The problem gun lovers have, is that they cannot even convince their own State legislators, that they can be responsible with their guns.
> 
> State legislators make laws regarding the Health and the Safety, of the People of the State.
Click to expand...


"Dude,"  At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda.  That is more than we can honestly say about you.

What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant.  You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question.  Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?

You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are.  Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia.  *You've never even been in a militia*.  I wrote the handbook for our state's militia.  That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.

So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey?  *EVERY* sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths.  And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.

LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells:  Your Rights are *NOT* "_secured_" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies.  Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:

_"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."_
_
secure
_
All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights,  is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms.  When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (*first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress*)  before considering any extraordinary actions.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos says:

"_Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not natural rights_."

*Thomas Jefferson *wrote:

"_The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, … or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; *that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed*; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press_."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Major John Cartwright (5 June 1824).
danielpalos says:

"_Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution_"

According to Samuel Adams (founding father):

"_The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms_."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

It seems to me that your Right to keep and bear Arms is "_secured_" as per danielpalos definition via the Second Amendment... unless danielpalos is claiming Samuel Adams a flaming idiot that did not know whereof he spoke.

The American courts have RULED:

“_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, *which belong to them independently of all government*, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._”        People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

And what have the *states* had to say about the Right to keep and bear Arms?   STATE SUPREME COURTS would be the final arbiters as to what state law is.  One of the earliest state decisions goes like this:

"*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."

-*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
*
So, should I believe danielpalos or a STATE SUPREME COURT?

Philosophies aside, danielpalos has no binding authority on which to base his claims and he can't even articulate what it is he supposedly believes in.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> "Dude,"  At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda.  That is more than we can honestly say about you.
> 
> What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant.  You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question.  Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?
> 
> You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are.  Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia.  *You've never even been in a militia*.  I wrote the handbook for our state's militia.  That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.
> 
> So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey?  *EVERY* sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths.  And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.
> 
> LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells:  Your Rights are *NOT* "_secured_" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies.  Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:
> 
> _"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."
> 
> secure
> _
> All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights,  is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms.  When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (*first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress*)  before considering any extraordinary actions.


Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)

According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.

You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.

Talk about being a poser. LMFAO


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Let me ask you again:
> 
> You talk in a vocabulary that only you understand. You've preached the same nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit to the point that most people don't want to communicate with you in any way, shape, fashion, or form..
> 
> The unorganized militia needs no "_protection_" from the government. You seem to be the only person on the entire Internet that does not understand the basics of American Civics 101. Government does not grant Rights.
> 
> Having read your idiocy for a number of years, I'd like to put the shoe on the other foot and have you explain to us what *YOUR* cause is. You like telling people how clueless and causeless they are - as if you're the only swinging Richard on the face of the earth competent enough to tell others what they believe in.
> 
> What is it *YOU* believe in? Do you think that government grants you your Rights and you are beholden to them? Do you really think that one must worship the government? If you're going to judge everybody on this earth and claim that you're some kind of God (albeit indirectly) "_clue_" us all in on the Holy Word according to danielpalos.
> 
> You shouldn't try bullshitting the people on this thread.  I belong to the oldest and most continuous state militia in the United States... and have three decades of service under my belt.  *You don't know what you're talking about*.
> 
> What you just said is absolute nonsense.  It makes zero sense whether you have three decades of militia experience or never heard of one.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos continues to try and cloud the issues with total nonsense, but he cannot and will not answer the questions asked of him.  He's lying and making stuff up as he goes along.
> 
> If everybody else is clueless and causeless... what, exactly, is his cause...?????... I mean besides trolling people and acting like a dumb ass???
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you simply misunderstand the concepts.  that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply misunderstanding that the rest of the people reading this realize that you are fake, phony, poseur that gets off masturbating and telling his fellow posters they are idiots because they don't get your nonsensical drivel.
> 
> Let me tell you a concept that *everybody* here understands.  You are trolling this thread and you're beginning to look like a total dumb ass.  So, in my next post, I will ask you the questions again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you have nothing but rhetoric, not even propaganda.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.
> 
> The problem gun lovers have, is that they cannot even convince their own State legislators, that they can be responsible with their guns.
> 
> State legislators make laws regarding the Health and the Safety, of the People of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Dude,"  At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda.  That is more than we can honestly say about you.
> 
> What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant.  You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question.  Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?
> 
> You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are.  Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia.  *You've never even been in a militia*.  I wrote the handbook for our state's militia.  That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.
> 
> So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey?  *EVERY* sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths.  And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.
> 
> LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells:  Your Rights are *NOT* "_secured_" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies.  Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:
> 
> _"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."
> 
> secure
> _
> All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights,  is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms.  When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (*first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress*)  before considering any extraordinary actions.
Click to expand...

A case in point of the disingenuousness of the right wing.  Any dictionary will inform us, the right wing has nothing but special pleading, which is usually considered a fallacy.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos says:
> 
> "_Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not natural rights_."
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson *wrote:
> 
> "_The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, … or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; *that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed*; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press_."
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Major John Cartwright (5 June 1824).
> danielpalos says:
> 
> "_Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution_"
> 
> According to Samuel Adams (founding father):
> 
> "_The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms_."
> - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
> 
> It seems to me that your Right to keep and bear Arms is "_secured_" as per danielpalos definition via the Second Amendment... unless danielpalos is claiming Samuel Adams a flaming idiot that did not know whereof he spoke.
> 
> The American courts have RULED:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, *which belong to them independently of all government*, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._”        People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)
> 
> And what have the *states* had to say about the Right to keep and bear Arms?   STATE SUPREME COURTS would be the final arbiters as to what state law is.  One of the earliest state decisions goes like this:
> 
> "*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."
> 
> -*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> *
> So, should I believe danielpalos or a STATE SUPREME COURT?
> 
> Philosophies aside, danielpalos has no binding authority on which to base his claims and he can't even articulate what it is he supposedly believes in.


Subject to the police power of a State.  

States have State militias and a commander in chief of that which is declared necessary.



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos continues to try and cloud the issues with total nonsense, but he cannot and will not answer the questions asked of him.  He's lying and making stuff up as he goes along.
> 
> If everybody else is clueless and causeless... what, exactly, is his cause...?????... I mean besides trolling people and acting like a dumb ass???
> 
> 
> 
> you simply misunderstand the concepts.  that is all.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are simply misunderstanding that the rest of the people reading this realize that you are fake, phony, poseur that gets off masturbating and telling his fellow posters they are idiots because they don't get your nonsensical drivel.
> 
> Let me tell you a concept that *everybody* here understands.  You are trolling this thread and you're beginning to look like a total dumb ass.  So, in my next post, I will ask you the questions again.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you have nothing but rhetoric, not even propaganda.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.
> 
> Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution.
> 
> The problem gun lovers have, is that they cannot even convince their own State legislators, that they can be responsible with their guns.
> 
> State legislators make laws regarding the Health and the Safety, of the People of the State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "Dude,"  At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda.  That is more than we can honestly say about you.
> 
> What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant.  You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question.  Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?
> 
> You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are.  Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia.  *You've never even been in a militia*.  I wrote the handbook for our state's militia.  That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.
> 
> So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey?  *EVERY* sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths.  And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.
> 
> LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells:  Your Rights are *NOT* "_secured_" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies.  Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:
> 
> _"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."
> 
> secure
> _
> All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights,  is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms.  When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (*first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress*)  before considering any extraordinary actions.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A case in point of the disingenuousness of the right wing.  Any dictionary will inform us, the right wing has nothing but special pleading, which is usually considered a fallacy.
Click to expand...


There you've resorted to your nonsensical canard that is both meaningless and dishonest.  You presume I'm on the right.  I'm not, but what have you been right about?  NOTHING.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos says:
> 
> "_Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not natural rights_."
> 
> *Thomas Jefferson *wrote:
> 
> "_The constitutions of most of our States assert, that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves, … or they may act by representatives, freely and equally chosen; *that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed*; that they are entitled to freedom of person, freedom of religion, freedom of property, and freedom of the press_."
> 
> Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Major John Cartwright (5 June 1824).
> danielpalos says:
> 
> "_Natural rights are recognized and secured in State Constitutions and available via Due Process in our federal Constitution_"
> 
> According to Samuel Adams (founding father):
> 
> "_The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms_."
> - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
> 
> It seems to me that your Right to keep and bear Arms is "_secured_" as per danielpalos definition via the Second Amendment... unless danielpalos is claiming Samuel Adams a flaming idiot that did not know whereof he spoke.
> 
> The American courts have RULED:
> 
> “_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, *which belong to them independently of all government*, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._”        People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)
> 
> And what have the *states* had to say about the Right to keep and bear Arms?   STATE SUPREME COURTS would be the final arbiters as to what state law is.  One of the earliest state decisions goes like this:
> 
> "*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."
> 
> -*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> *
> So, should I believe danielpalos or a STATE SUPREME COURT?
> 
> Philosophies aside, danielpalos has no binding authority on which to base his claims and he can't even articulate what it is he supposedly believes in.
> 
> 
> 
> Subject to the police power of a State.
> 
> States have State militias and a commander in chief of that which is declared necessary.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...



danielpalos,

You talk in a vocabulary that only you understand. You've preached the same nonsensical and irrelevant bullshit to the point that most people don't want to communicate with you in any way, shape, fashion, or form..

The unorganized militia needs no "_protection_" from the government. You seem to be the only person on the entire Internet that does not understand the basics of American Civics 101. Government does not grant Rights. 

Having read your idiocy for a number of years, I'd like to put the shoe on the other foot and have you explain to us what *YOUR* cause is. You like telling people how clueless and causeless they are - as if you're the only swinging Richard on the face of the earth competent enough to tell others what they believe in. 

What is it *YOU* believe in? Do you think that government grants you your Rights and you are beholden to them? Do you really think that one must worship the government? If you're going to judge everybody on this earth and claim that you're some kind of God (albeit indirectly) "_clue_" us all in on the Holy Word according to danielpalos.

DO YOU HAVE A POINT, DANIELPALOS?


----------



## danielpalos

admit it; y'all are just and merely and only, clueless and Causeless and obstructing the promotion of the general welfare, like Bad boys are wont to do.

Subject to the police power of a State. Source: Illinois State Constitution.

States have State militias and a commander in chief of that which is declared necessary. Source: an established doctrine for our federal form of government.



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.  Source: New York State Constitution


----------



## Humorme

Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.

Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.


Only drugless wonders say that.

States have militias; it is a States' right declared in our Second Amendment, literally.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> admit it; y'all are just and merely and only, clueless and Causeless and obstructing the promotion of the general welfare, like Bad boys are wont to do.
> 
> Subject to the police power of a State. Source: Illinois State Constitution.
> 
> States have State militias and a commander in chief of that which is declared necessary. Source: an established doctrine for our federal form of government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.  Source: New York State Constitution
Click to expand...


You're being a fucking idiot.  You have been asked what *YOUR* cause is and to state what it is *YOU* believe in. You can't cobble a few words together into sentences and tell us.   BTW,  nobody accuses you of being on the left because you call everybody right wing.  You know why?  Even the left don't understand what in the Hell you think you're trying to convey.

So, rather than hurl accusations and rely on shit that don't make sense, why not answer my question???


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> Only drugless wonders say that.
> 
> States have militias; it is a States' right declared in our Second Amendment, literally.
Click to expand...


Half truth with NO supporting evidence.  Answer my questions.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> Only drugless wonders say that.
> 
> States have militias; it is a States' right declared in our Second Amendment, literally.
Click to expand...



Only a drugless wonder would say that?  Okay, now we're getting somewhere.  How many drugs do you take prior to making these endless and nonsensical posts about a topic you haven't a clue about?

Do you really think if I do enough drugs I'll understand your tripe?


----------



## danielpalos

nothing but diversion, dear?

States have militias; it is a States' right declared in our Second Amendment, literally.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.


The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.


----------



## danielpalos

Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State, not natural rights.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.


They are legal but they are not well regulated.


----------



## SSGT Bags

Liquid Reigns said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.
Click to expand...

Sigh, one last time!

*militia in American*
(məˈlɪʃə 
noun
1. 
a. Archaic
any military force
b. 
later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
2. US
in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
3. 
any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.

All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.


----------



## Faun

SSGT Bags said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh, one last time!
> 
> *militia in American*
> (məˈlɪʃə
> noun
> 1.
> a. Archaic
> any military force
> b.
> later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
> 2. US
> in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
> 3.
> any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
> Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
> 
> All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.
Click to expand...

Who regulates the unorganized militia? If you own firearms, to which militia do you belong?


----------



## danielpalos

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> They are legal but they are not well regulated.
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners and guidons.


----------



## danielpalos

SSGT Bags said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh, one last time!
> 
> *militia in American*
> (məˈlɪʃə
> noun
> 1.
> a. Archaic
> any military force
> b.
> later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
> 2. US
> in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
> 3.
> any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
> Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
> 
> All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.
Click to expand...

not at all;

gun lovers always omit this:  _all others, the unorganized militia

Well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for that purpose.
_


----------



## Liquid Reigns

SSGT Bags said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh, one last time!
> 
> *militia in American*
> (məˈlɪʃə
> noun
> 1.
> a. Archaic
> any military force
> b.
> later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
> 2. US
> in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
> 3.
> any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
> Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
> 
> All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.
Click to expand...

"Private militias are armed military groups that are composed of private citizens and not recognized by federal or state governments." Private Militias

You see, I can use a dictionary, too.

According to #2 unless you are in the National Guard, you may be part of the unorganized militia if you are within a limited age group.The unorganized militia (the individual) can be recruited to join the Organized militia (the National Guard) or the US Military via conscription.

#3 talks about private militias/far-right paramilitary wanna-bees who see themselves as opposing a tyrannical govt.


----------



## danielpalos

Faun said:


> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh, one last time!
> 
> *militia in American*
> (məˈlɪʃə
> noun
> 1.
> a. Archaic
> any military force
> b.
> later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
> 2. US
> in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
> 3.
> any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
> Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
> 
> All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who regulates the unorganized militia? If you own firearms, to which militia do you belong?
Click to expand...

This is a State's obligation:   _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## danielpalos

Liquid Reigns said:


> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh, one last time!
> 
> *militia in American*
> (məˈlɪʃə
> noun
> 1.
> a. Archaic
> any military force
> b.
> later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
> 2. US
> in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
> 3.
> any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
> Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
> 
> All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Private militias are armed military groups that are composed of private citizens and not recognized by federal or state governments." Private Militias
> 
> You see, I can use a dictionary, too.
> 
> According to #2 unless you are in the National Guard, you may be part of the unorganized militia if you are within a limited age group.
> 
> #3 talks about private militias/far-right paramilitary wanna-bees who see themselves as opposing a tyrannical govt.
Click to expand...

Not recognized as well regulated.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

danielpalos said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh, one last time!
> 
> *militia in American*
> (məˈlɪʃə
> noun
> 1.
> a. Archaic
> any military force
> b.
> later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
> 2. US
> in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
> 3.
> any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
> Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
> 
> All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Private militias are armed military groups that are composed of private citizens and not recognized by federal or state governments." Private Militias
> 
> You see, I can use a dictionary, too.
> 
> According to #2 unless you are in the National Guard, you may be part of the unorganized militia if you are within a limited age group.
> 
> #3 talks about private militias/far-right paramilitary wanna-bees who see themselves as opposing a tyrannical govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not recognized as well regulated.
Click to expand...

Eggzakly


----------



## danielpalos

Bacon!


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh, one last time!
> 
> *militia in American*
> (məˈlɪʃə
> noun
> 1.
> a. Archaic
> any military force
> b.
> later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
> 2. US
> in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
> 3.
> any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
> Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
> 
> All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who regulates the unorganized militia? If you own firearms, to which militia do you belong?
Click to expand...




Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> They are legal but they are not well regulated.
Click to expand...


They're legal, but not well regulated?  By whose standards?  Yours?

"_Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_."
- Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778

"_A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms_."

-- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment

Don't try to conflate the two.  You're well regulated when you have a weapon and the governor calls that militia into service.  In its dormant state, it is merely armed citizens who have an *absolute* Right to keep and bear Arms.  But, because they are part of the whole people, they constitute the unorganized militia.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh, one last time!
> 
> *militia in American*
> (məˈlɪʃə
> noun
> 1.
> a. Archaic
> any military force
> b.
> later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
> 2. US
> in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
> 3.
> any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
> Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
> 
> All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not at all;
> 
> gun lovers always omit this:  _all others, the unorganized militia
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for that purpose._
Click to expand...


You are a liar.  That has been addressed more than 25 times in this thread alone.  *ALL* of your bogus posts have been addressed.  You've yet to cobble together a couple of words to make a sentence that tells us what your "_cause_" is.   I'd say that makes *YOU* causeless.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh, one last time!
> 
> *militia in American*
> (məˈlɪʃə
> noun
> 1.
> a. Archaic
> any military force
> b.
> later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
> 2. US
> in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
> 3.
> any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
> Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
> 
> All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who regulates the unorganized militia? If you own firearms, to which militia do you belong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are legal but they are not well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're legal, but not well regulated?  By whose standards?  Yours?
> 
> "_Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_."
> - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
> 
> "_A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms_."
> 
> -- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment
> 
> Don't try to conflate the two.  You're well regulated when you have a weapon and the governor calls that militia into service.  In its dormant state, it is merely armed citizens who have an *absolute* Right to keep and bear Arms.  But, because they are part of the whole people, they constitute the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...

Utter nonsense. Accordingly no to you, Devin Kelly and Stephen Paddock were members of a well regulated militia.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh, one last time!
> 
> *militia in American*
> (məˈlɪʃə
> noun
> 1.
> a. Archaic
> any military force
> b.
> later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
> 2. US
> in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
> 3.
> any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
> Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
> 
> All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who regulates the unorganized militia? If you own firearms, to which militia do you belong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are legal but they are not well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're legal, but not well regulated?  By whose standards?  Yours?
> 
> "_Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_."
> - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
> 
> "_A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms_."
> 
> -- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment
> 
> Don't try to conflate the two.  You're well regulated when you have a weapon and the governor calls that militia into service.  In its dormant state, it is merely armed citizens who have an *absolute* Right to keep and bear Arms.  But, because they are part of the whole people, they constitute the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. Accordingly no to you, Devin Kelly and Stephen Paddock were members of a well regulated militia.
Click to expand...



Nidal Hasan was a member of the organized militia.  Your point?


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh, one last time!
> 
> *militia in American*
> (məˈlɪʃə
> noun
> 1.
> a. Archaic
> any military force
> b.
> later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
> 2. US
> in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
> 3.
> any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
> Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
> 
> All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "Private militias are armed military groups that are composed of private citizens and not recognized by federal or state governments." Private Militias
> 
> You see, I can use a dictionary, too.
> 
> According to #2 unless you are in the National Guard, you may be part of the unorganized militia if you are within a limited age group.
> 
> #3 talks about private militias/far-right paramilitary wanna-bees who see themselves as opposing a tyrannical govt.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not recognized as well regulated.
Click to expand...



Recognized by whom?  *Unalienable* Rights need no recognition - except to the extent that the government will not infringe upon them.


----------



## Faun

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh, one last time!
> 
> *militia in American*
> (məˈlɪʃə
> noun
> 1.
> a. Archaic
> any military force
> b.
> later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
> 2. US
> in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
> 3.
> any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
> Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
> 
> All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who regulates the unorganized militia? If you own firearms, to which militia do you belong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are legal but they are not well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're legal, but not well regulated?  By whose standards?  Yours?
> 
> "_Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_."
> - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
> 
> "_A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms_."
> 
> -- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment
> 
> Don't try to conflate the two.  You're well regulated when you have a weapon and the governor calls that militia into service.  In its dormant state, it is merely armed citizens who have an *absolute* Right to keep and bear Arms.  But, because they are part of the whole people, they constitute the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. Accordingly no to you, Devin Kelly and Stephen Paddock were members of a well regulated militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nidal Hasan was a member of the organized militia.  Your point?
Click to expand...

That not everyone is in a militia.


----------



## Humorme

Faun said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh, one last time!
> 
> *militia in American*
> (məˈlɪʃə
> noun
> 1.
> a. Archaic
> any military force
> b.
> later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
> 2. US
> in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
> 3.
> any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
> Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
> 
> All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.
> 
> 
> 
> Who regulates the unorganized militia? If you own firearms, to which militia do you belong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are legal but they are not well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're legal, but not well regulated?  By whose standards?  Yours?
> 
> "_Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_."
> - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
> 
> "_A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms_."
> 
> -- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment
> 
> Don't try to conflate the two.  You're well regulated when you have a weapon and the governor calls that militia into service.  In its dormant state, it is merely armed citizens who have an *absolute* Right to keep and bear Arms.  But, because they are part of the whole people, they constitute the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Utter nonsense. Accordingly no to you, Devin Kelly and Stephen Paddock were members of a well regulated militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Nidal Hasan was a member of the organized militia.  Your point?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> That not everyone is in a militia.
Click to expand...


I could conjugate verbs with you all day long, but you'd still try to conflate the issue.

You have an* individual* Right to keep and bear Arms.  It is a Right that predates the Constitution and the Right is not dependent upon the Constitution for its existence.  (Supreme Court ruling posted in this thread more than a dozen times)

In 1846 the Georgia Supreme Court ruled:



“_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)



In Texas, their Supreme Court made the point unequivocally clear:




"*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."

-*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)*

*Then, the United States Supreme Court weighed in:*

*“The Government of the United States, although it is, within the scope of its powers, supreme and beyond the States, can neither grant nor secure to its citizens rights or privileges which are not expressly or by implication placed under its jurisdiction. All that cannot be so granted or secured are left to the exclusive protection of the States. *

*..The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. *United States v. Cruikshank 92 US 542 (1875)

So, once again, The Right to keep and bear Arms is a Right, but it was not granted by the Constitution, neither is it dependent upon the Constitution for its existence. It is above the law and the lawmaking power and it is *absolute*. By any and all definitions, the Right to keep and bear Arms is a personal Liberty and it is an extension of your Right to Life. That is another way of saying that the Right is an *unalienable* Right.

*The Second Amendment protects the Right of the People* because, in doing so, they can insure the security of a free state.  That is because when a militia is needed to stop government tyranny, the people are armed and provide a force greater than any military.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh, one last time!
> 
> *militia in American*
> (məˈlɪʃə
> noun
> 1.
> a. Archaic
> any military force
> b.
> later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
> 2. US
> in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
> 3.
> any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
> Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
> 
> All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who regulates the unorganized militia? If you own firearms, to which militia do you belong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are legal but they are not well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're legal, but not well regulated?  By whose standards?  Yours?
> 
> "_Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_."
> - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
> 
> "_A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms_."
> 
> -- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment
> 
> Don't try to conflate the two.  You're well regulated when you have a weapon and the governor calls that militia into service.  In its dormant state, it is merely armed citizens who have an *absolute* Right to keep and bear Arms.  But, because they are part of the whole people, they constitute the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...

You are confusing natural rights with militia service.  They are not the same.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh, one last time!
> 
> *militia in American*
> (məˈlɪʃə
> noun
> 1.
> a. Archaic
> any military force
> b.
> later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
> 2. US
> in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
> 3.
> any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
> Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
> 
> All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> not at all;
> 
> gun lovers always omit this:  _all others, the unorganized militia
> 
> Well regulated militia are declared necessary to the security of a free State, and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for that purpose._
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are a liar.  That has been addressed more than 25 times in this thread alone.  *ALL* of your bogus posts have been addressed.  You've yet to cobble together a couple of words to make a sentence that tells us what your "_cause_" is.   I'd say that makes *YOU* causeless.
Click to expand...

dear, I don't have to lie; I have a valid argument.  Only the right wing has nothing but repeal, and those forms of fallacies.

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not, for Second Amendment purposes.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Sigh, one last time!
> 
> *militia in American*
> (məˈlɪʃə
> noun
> 1.
> a. Archaic
> any military force
> b.
> later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
> 2. US
> in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
> 3.
> any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
> Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
> 
> All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who regulates the unorganized militia? If you own firearms, to which militia do you belong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are legal but they are not well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're legal, but not well regulated?  By whose standards?  Yours?
> 
> "_Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_."
> - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
> 
> "_A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms_."
> 
> -- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment
> 
> Don't try to conflate the two.  You're well regulated when you have a weapon and the governor calls that militia into service.  In its dormant state, it is merely armed citizens who have an *absolute* Right to keep and bear Arms.  But, because they are part of the whole people, they constitute the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with militia service.  They are not the same.
Click to expand...


I'm not confusing a damn thing you liar.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Governor will not call upon private/citizen militias in an emergency, as they are not recognized as anything but a bunch of wanna-bees playing dress up in camo.
> 
> 
> 
> Sigh, one last time!
> 
> *militia in American*
> (məˈlɪʃə
> noun
> 1.
> a. Archaic
> any military force
> b.
> later, any army composed of citizens rather than professional soldiers, called up in time of emergency
> 2. US
> in the U.S., all able-bodied male citizens between 18 and 45 years old who are not alreadymembers of the regular armed forces: members of the National Guard and of the Reserves (of the Army, Air Force, Coast Guard, Navy, and Marine Corps) constitute the organized militia; all others, the unorganized militia
> 3.
> any of various disaffected groups of citizens that are organized as to resemble an army and that oppose the authority of the federal government
> Webster’s New World College Dictionary, 4th Edition. Copyright © 2010 by Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. All rights reserved.
> 
> All you gun grabbers read, AND UNDERSTAND #3.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Who regulates the unorganized militia? If you own firearms, to which militia do you belong?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Faun said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Civilian militias exist in most states in the U.S. They are civilian militias; they are legal; they do not have a leadership that answers to the state UNLESS THE GOVERNOR CALLS THEM UP IN AN EMERGENCY.
> 
> Even then the governor's jurisdiction is limited to the duration of the emergency.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> They are legal but they are not well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> They're legal, but not well regulated?  By whose standards?  Yours?
> 
> "_Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are ruined.... The great object is that every man be armed. Everyone who is able might have a gun_."
> - Patrick Henry, Speech to the Virginia Ratifying Convention, June 5, 1778
> 
> "_A militia, when properly formed, are in fact the people themselves ... and include all men capable of bearing arms_."
> 
> -- Senator Richard Henry Lee, 1788, on "militia" in the 2nd Amendment
> 
> Don't try to conflate the two.  You're well regulated when you have a weapon and the governor calls that militia into service.  In its dormant state, it is merely armed citizens who have an *absolute* Right to keep and bear Arms.  But, because they are part of the whole people, they constitute the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with militia service.  They are not the same.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not confusing a damn thing you liar.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not, for Second Amendment purposes.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos has shown that he is nothing but a sodomite and a troll.  *NOTHING *he's posted is accurate; it has no legal foundation; he hasn't cited a single source for his lunatic ravings; he continues to try and appeal to me as if I understood his homosexual advances with his "_dear_" comments.

danielpalos can try to conflate the issues, but the bottom line is that you have an *individual* Right to keep and bear Arms that predates the Constitution of the United States and that individual Right doesn't have squat to do with a well regulated militia.

The Second Amendment neither creates a Right *NOR* secures it.  That is according to standing case law.  The Second Amendment* guarantees the Right* because if the government had to rely on the citizenry to be a last line of defense of this country, an armed citizenry could insure the security of a free state.

Since the government does not have the resources, time, money, or the immediate need to train, equip, and discipline a militia, they guarantee an existing Right so that each of you can own a weapon consistent with your *absolute*, inherent, God given, *unalienable*, natural Right (that existed before the Constitution was created) 

This concept don't take 500 posts to understand.


----------



## danielpalos

Nothing but fallacy, right wingers?

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not, for Second Amendment purposes.

Arms for the militia is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8.

You are confusing natural rights with militia obligation.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Nothing but fallacy, right wingers?
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not, for Second Amendment purposes.
> 
> Arms for the militia is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with militia obligation.



Fallacy?  right wingers?  Nobody but *YOU* are confused.  Article 1 Section 8 is in reference to the* organized *militia. 

danielpalos, * the greatest fallacy* going on here on USM is your dumb ass thinking you have contributed something that would stimulate the human mind.

While the people constitute the militia, it is still in classes of organized and unorganized.  Article 1 Section 8 refers to an organized militia that is raised up and trained for immediate use.

*NOBODY, but YOU* has confused the militia with natural rights.


----------



## Humorme

Some days I can't help but feel sorry for danielpalos.  He works hard for relevance, but his ramblings don't make sense.  It does get tiresome to humor him and make him feel important.

This isn't rocket science.  He babbles on about how "_right wingers_" have confused the issues of natural rights and the militia.  What an idiot!  He's either dumber than a box of rocks or an outright liar, but I'd spit in his face if he ever talked to me in person the way he talks to me on this board.

I keep saying it and danielpalos cannot understand this:

1)  You have an* absolute, unalienable, God given, inherent, natural RIGHT *to keep and bear Arms.  That Right is not dependent upon the Constitution NOR service in a militia

2)  danielpalos is the *ONLY* person conflating the issue of militia and *natural, inherent, God given, absolute, unalienable *Rights  (the courts have ruled those words to be synonymous

3)  While the citizenry comprises the militia, federal law breaks the militia down into two groups:  unorganized and organized.  If you are in the unorganized militia, you are *not* a member of the Armed Forces, National Guard, or any government run militia.  You still have your *natural, inherent, God given, unalienable, absolute*  Rights intact

4)  The militia is a separate issue from the Right to keep and bear Arms.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but fallacy, right wingers?
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not, for Second Amendment purposes.
> 
> Arms for the militia is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with militia obligation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacy?  right wingers?  Nobody but *YOU* are confused.  Article 1 Section 8 is in reference to the* organized *militia.
> 
> danielpalos, * the greatest fallacy* going on here on USM is your dumb ass thinking you have contributed something that would stimulate the human mind.
> 
> While the people constitute the militia, it is still in classes of organized and unorganized.  Article 1 Section 8 refers to an organized militia that is raised up and trained for immediate use.
> 
> *NOBODY, but YOU* has confused the militia with natural rights.
Click to expand...

Article 1, section 8 is about the militia of the United States; the subject of Arms for the militia is declared socialized.

You are confusing natural rights with what is codified in our Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> Some days I can't help but feel sorry for danielpalos.  He works hard for relevance, but his ramblings don't make sense.  It does get tiresome to humor him and make him feel important.
> 
> This isn't rocket science.  He babbles on about how "_right wingers_" have confused the issues of natural rights and the militia.  What an idiot!  He's either dumber than a box of rocks or an outright liar, but I'd spit in his face if he ever talked to me in person the way he talks to me on this board.
> 
> I keep saying it and danielpalos cannot understand this:
> 
> 1)  You have an* absolute, unalienable, God given, inherent, natural RIGHT *to keep and bear Arms.  That Right is not dependent upon the Constitution NOR service in a militia
> 
> 2)  danielpalos is the *ONLY* person conflating the issue of militia and *natural, inherent, God given, absolute, unalienable *Rights  (the courts have ruled those words to be synonymous
> 
> 3)  While the citizenry comprises the militia, federal law breaks the militia down into two groups:  unorganized and organized.  If you are in the unorganized militia, you are *not* a member of the Armed Forces, National Guard, or any government run militia.  You still have your *natural, inherent, God given, unalienable, absolute*  Rights intact
> 
> 4)  The militia is a separate issue from the Right to keep and bear Arms.


natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but fallacy, right wingers?
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not, for Second Amendment purposes.
> 
> Arms for the militia is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with militia obligation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacy?  right wingers?  Nobody but *YOU* are confused.  Article 1 Section 8 is in reference to the* organized *militia.
> 
> danielpalos, * the greatest fallacy* going on here on USM is your dumb ass thinking you have contributed something that would stimulate the human mind.
> 
> While the people constitute the militia, it is still in classes of organized and unorganized.  Article 1 Section 8 refers to an organized militia that is raised up and trained for immediate use.
> 
> *NOBODY, but YOU* has confused the militia with natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article 1, section 8 is about the militia of the United States; the subject of Arms for the militia is declared socialized.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with what is codified in our Constitution.
Click to expand...


No sir, danielpalos.  *YOU* are the only person who is confused.  Make this simple for the reading audience:

Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms?  A simple yes or no is all I ask.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but fallacy, right wingers?
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not, for Second Amendment purposes.
> 
> Arms for the militia is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with militia obligation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacy?  right wingers?  Nobody but *YOU* are confused.  Article 1 Section 8 is in reference to the* organized *militia.
> 
> danielpalos, * the greatest fallacy* going on here on USM is your dumb ass thinking you have contributed something that would stimulate the human mind.
> 
> While the people constitute the militia, it is still in classes of organized and unorganized.  Article 1 Section 8 refers to an organized militia that is raised up and trained for immediate use.
> 
> *NOBODY, but YOU* has confused the militia with natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article 1, section 8 is about the militia of the United States; the subject of Arms for the militia is declared socialized.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with what is codified in our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, danielpalos.  *YOU* are the only person who is confused.  Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms?  A simple yes or no is all I ask.
Click to expand...

Defense of self and property is a natural right.  Arms make that more practicable.

Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

See the difference?


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some days I can't help but feel sorry for danielpalos.  He works hard for relevance, but his ramblings don't make sense.  It does get tiresome to humor him and make him feel important.
> 
> This isn't rocket science.  He babbles on about how "_right wingers_" have confused the issues of natural rights and the militia.  What an idiot!  He's either dumber than a box of rocks or an outright liar, but I'd spit in his face if he ever talked to me in person the way he talks to me on this board.
> 
> I keep saying it and danielpalos cannot understand this:
> 
> 1)  You have an* absolute, unalienable, God given, inherent, natural RIGHT *to keep and bear Arms.  That Right is not dependent upon the Constitution NOR service in a militia
> 
> 2)  danielpalos is the *ONLY* person conflating the issue of militia and *natural, inherent, God given, absolute, unalienable *Rights  (the courts have ruled those words to be synonymous
> 
> 3)  While the citizenry comprises the militia, federal law breaks the militia down into two groups:  unorganized and organized.  If you are in the unorganized militia, you are *not* a member of the Armed Forces, National Guard, or any government run militia.  You still have your *natural, inherent, God given, unalienable, absolute*  Rights intact
> 
> 4)  The militia is a separate issue from the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
Click to expand...



Absolutely *WRONG*.  Here is how the courts have interpreted those Rights:

“_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

_By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, *which belong to them independently of all government*, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)

Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms? A simple yes or no is all I ask.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but fallacy, right wingers?
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not, for Second Amendment purposes.
> 
> Arms for the militia is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with militia obligation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacy?  right wingers?  Nobody but *YOU* are confused.  Article 1 Section 8 is in reference to the* organized *militia.
> 
> danielpalos, * the greatest fallacy* going on here on USM is your dumb ass thinking you have contributed something that would stimulate the human mind.
> 
> While the people constitute the militia, it is still in classes of organized and unorganized.  Article 1 Section 8 refers to an organized militia that is raised up and trained for immediate use.
> 
> *NOBODY, but YOU* has confused the militia with natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article 1, section 8 is about the militia of the United States; the subject of Arms for the militia is declared socialized.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with what is codified in our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, danielpalos.  *YOU* are the only person who is confused.  Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms?  A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defense of self and property is a natural right.  Arms make that more practicable.
> 
> Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> See the difference?
Click to expand...


The difference, danielpalos, is that the *RIGHT *shall not be infringed.

No sir, danielpalos. *YOU* are the only person who is confused. Make this simple for the reading audience:

Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms? A simple yes or no is all I ask.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Some days I can't help but feel sorry for danielpalos.  He works hard for relevance, but his ramblings don't make sense.  It does get tiresome to humor him and make him feel important.
> 
> This isn't rocket science.  He babbles on about how "_right wingers_" have confused the issues of natural rights and the militia.  What an idiot!  He's either dumber than a box of rocks or an outright liar, but I'd spit in his face if he ever talked to me in person the way he talks to me on this board.
> 
> I keep saying it and danielpalos cannot understand this:
> 
> 1)  You have an* absolute, unalienable, God given, inherent, natural RIGHT *to keep and bear Arms.  That Right is not dependent upon the Constitution NOR service in a militia
> 
> 2)  danielpalos is the *ONLY* person conflating the issue of militia and *natural, inherent, God given, absolute, unalienable *Rights  (the courts have ruled those words to be synonymous
> 
> 3)  While the citizenry comprises the militia, federal law breaks the militia down into two groups:  unorganized and organized.  If you are in the unorganized militia, you are *not* a member of the Armed Forces, National Guard, or any government run militia.  You still have your *natural, inherent, God given, unalienable, absolute*  Rights intact
> 
> 4)  The militia is a separate issue from the Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Absolutely *WRONG*.  Here is how the courts have interpreted those Rights:
> 
> “_The *absolute *rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be *natural, inherent, and unalienable*_.” Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)
> 
> _By the "*absolute rights*" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "*absolute rights*" of individuals, *which belong to them independently of all government*, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect._” People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123)
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms? A simple yes or no is all I ask.
Click to expand...

dude; that doesn't matter once you get to social justice; private justice really is, that limited.

natural rights are covered in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.



> All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but fallacy, right wingers?
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are not, for Second Amendment purposes.
> 
> Arms for the militia is declared socialized in Article 1, Section 8.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with militia obligation.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacy?  right wingers?  Nobody but *YOU* are confused.  Article 1 Section 8 is in reference to the* organized *militia.
> 
> danielpalos, * the greatest fallacy* going on here on USM is your dumb ass thinking you have contributed something that would stimulate the human mind.
> 
> While the people constitute the militia, it is still in classes of organized and unorganized.  Article 1 Section 8 refers to an organized militia that is raised up and trained for immediate use.
> 
> *NOBODY, but YOU* has confused the militia with natural rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Article 1, section 8 is about the militia of the United States; the subject of Arms for the militia is declared socialized.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with what is codified in our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, danielpalos.  *YOU* are the only person who is confused.  Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms?  A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defense of self and property is a natural right.  Arms make that more practicable.
> 
> Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference, danielpalos, is that the *RIGHT *shall not be infringed.
> 
> No sir, danielpalos. *YOU* are the only person who is confused. Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms? A simple yes or no is all I ask.
Click to expand...

Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.


----------



## SSGT Bags

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacy?  right wingers?  Nobody but *YOU* are confused.  Article 1 Section 8 is in reference to the* organized *militia.
> 
> danielpalos, * the greatest fallacy* going on here on USM is your dumb ass thinking you have contributed something that would stimulate the human mind.
> 
> While the people constitute the militia, it is still in classes of organized and unorganized.  Article 1 Section 8 refers to an organized militia that is raised up and trained for immediate use.
> 
> *NOBODY, but YOU* has confused the militia with natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1, section 8 is about the militia of the United States; the subject of Arms for the militia is declared socialized.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with what is codified in our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, danielpalos.  *YOU* are the only person who is confused.  Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms?  A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defense of self and property is a natural right.  Arms make that more practicable.
> 
> Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference, danielpalos, is that the *RIGHT *shall not be infringed.
> 
> No sir, danielpalos. *YOU* are the only person who is confused. Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms? A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...

If I may quote a line from Johnny Dangerously, "You farking icehole."

A militia is made up of citizens, and is started as needed.
In order to START a REGULATED militia, you need armed citizens!
Got it?
Probably not.


----------



## danielpalos

SSGT Bags said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1, section 8 is about the militia of the United States; the subject of Arms for the militia is declared socialized.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with what is codified in our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, danielpalos.  *YOU* are the only person who is confused.  Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms?  A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defense of self and property is a natural right.  Arms make that more practicable.
> 
> Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference, danielpalos, is that the *RIGHT *shall not be infringed.
> 
> No sir, danielpalos. *YOU* are the only person who is confused. Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms? A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may quote a line from Johnny Dangerously, "You farking icehole."
> 
> A militia is made up of citizens, and is started as needed.
> In order to START a REGULATED militia, you need armed citizens!
> Got it?
> Probably not.
Click to expand...

you must be a regular; they go for anything (they are told.)



> 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.



"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on 
Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Fallacy?  right wingers?  Nobody but *YOU* are confused.  Article 1 Section 8 is in reference to the* organized *militia.
> 
> danielpalos, * the greatest fallacy* going on here on USM is your dumb ass thinking you have contributed something that would stimulate the human mind.
> 
> While the people constitute the militia, it is still in classes of organized and unorganized.  Article 1 Section 8 refers to an organized militia that is raised up and trained for immediate use.
> 
> *NOBODY, but YOU* has confused the militia with natural rights.
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1, section 8 is about the militia of the United States; the subject of Arms for the militia is declared socialized.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with what is codified in our Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No sir, danielpalos.  *YOU* are the only person who is confused.  Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms?  A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defense of self and property is a natural right.  Arms make that more practicable.
> 
> Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference, danielpalos, is that the *RIGHT *shall not be infringed.
> 
> No sir, danielpalos. *YOU* are the only person who is confused. Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms? A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


*WRONG* again, danielpalos.  The *Right of the people* is what is protected by the Second Amendment.   The militia is necessary, but it is the *Right of the people* that is protected from infringement.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> SSGT Bags said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, danielpalos.  *YOU* are the only person who is confused.  Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms?  A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> 
> 
> Defense of self and property is a natural right.  Arms make that more practicable.
> 
> Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference, danielpalos, is that the *RIGHT *shall not be infringed.
> 
> No sir, danielpalos. *YOU* are the only person who is confused. Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms? A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may quote a line from Johnny Dangerously, "You farking icehole."
> 
> A militia is made up of citizens, and is started as needed.
> In order to START a REGULATED militia, you need armed citizens!
> Got it?
> Probably not.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> you must be a regular; they go for anything (they are told.)
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


The difference, danielpalos, is that the *RIGHT *shall not be infringed.

No sir, danielpalos. *YOU* are the only person who is confused. Make this simple for the reading audience:

Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms? A simple yes or no is all I ask.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1, section 8 is about the militia of the United States; the subject of Arms for the militia is declared socialized.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with what is codified in our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, danielpalos.  *YOU* are the only person who is confused.  Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms?  A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defense of self and property is a natural right.  Arms make that more practicable.
> 
> Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference, danielpalos, is that the *RIGHT *shall not be infringed.
> 
> No sir, danielpalos. *YOU* are the only person who is confused. Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms? A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *WRONG* again, danielpalos.  The *Right of the people* is what is protected by the Second Amendment.   The militia is necessary, but it is the *Right of the people* that is protected from infringement.
Click to expand...

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on 
Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.


----------



## danielpalos

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on 
Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.

You are confusing natural rights, which omits the concept of militia service.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights, which omits the concept of militia service.



*YOU* are the confused one.  Natural Rights predate the Constitution.  All the Second Amendment does is to guarantee that the already existing Right will not be infringed.  How can you be so wrong on this?

You're wrong; most court decisions prove that.  You can't sell your socialist nonsense to people who have a better understanding than that.

It's the Right that cannot be infringed.  Read the Amendment.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Since the government does not have the resources, time, money, or the immediate need to train, equip, and discipline a militia, they guarantee an existing Right so that each of you can own a weapon consistent with your *absolute*, inherent, God given, *unalienable*, natural Right (that existed before the Constitution was created)
> 
> This concept don't take 500 posts to understand.


I wonder why then each state has a National Guard, Air National Guard, or a Defense Force that the Governors control. One is only "well regulated" if in the Organized Militia. As a member of the unorganized militia, you are not guaranteed the personal right to own a firearm, you are merely only allowed to own a weapon for personal protection or to hunt for food, as was allowed by the 1689 EBoR. Owning a weapon, let alone a firearm is not an absolute right. The absolute right is your right to self defense, which doesn't require, mandate, or allow you to own a firearm or a weapon.

This concept must take 500 or more posts to understand since you still can't get it right. imjusayn SMFH


----------



## Liquid Reigns

SSGT Bags said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Article 1, section 8 is about the militia of the United States; the subject of Arms for the militia is declared socialized.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with what is codified in our Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, danielpalos.  *YOU* are the only person who is confused.  Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms?  A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Defense of self and property is a natural right.  Arms make that more practicable.
> 
> Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference, danielpalos, is that the *RIGHT *shall not be infringed.
> 
> No sir, danielpalos. *YOU* are the only person who is confused. Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms? A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> If I may quote a line from Johnny Dangerously, "You farking icehole."
> 
> A militia is made up of citizens, and is started as needed.
> In order to START a REGULATED militia, you need armed citizens!
> Got it?
> Probably not.
Click to expand...

Prior to the DoI and after not all persons were in the militia, the militia was a well regulated group who had govt issued equipment and had weapons stored in a central location, basically a local armory. Private citizens could be conscripted, which could require the private citizen to supply his own rifle and specific supplies for said rifle, he would be issued the remainder of his equipment and gear.

The unorganized militia is simply allowed the absolute right to self defense, and any weapons they may purchase can be regulated. Now, if you are conscripted, the Organized Militia gives you all of your gear, to include your weapon, where the weapon is stored in an armory, and your gear is left with you and under your care.


----------



## Humorme

After weeks of reading danielpalos never ending line of B.S. we have finally figured out what kind of snake oil this clown has been hawking.  Even the liberals steer clear of his nonsensical cow dung.

So, let's destroy all of his argument:

The Second Amendment reads:

"_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_"

danielpalos makes a number of false assumptions that simply do not exist in that wording.

1)  The militia,* NOT *the people and *NOT *the Right, are the subject of the regulation wording

2)  The regulation of the militia in no way, shape, fashion, or form affects the *Right of the people
*
3)  Natural, God given, *unalienable,* absolute, inherent are not bestowed upon you by the government 

"_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

4)  danielpalos maintains that the only people who have a Right to keep and bear Arms is the militia.  This is irrational and false.  Here is a *court ruling* had to say:

"_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta_!"

*Nunn v. State,* 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

The Right to keep and bear Arms is *NOT* a militia "right;"  it is a Right of the people that predates the Constitution and is above the law.

danielpalos cannot overcome the facts.  He is a self proclaimed socialist.  Another socialist (actually a National Socialist) that danielpalos loves to emulate once observed that it is easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than the plain truth that nobody ever heard before.  And so, our board troll accuses others of being clueless and causeless for rejecting socialism.  *IF* anyone were "_clueless_," you now know danielpalos motivation. I'm damn sure not "_clueless_,"  and if I were in charge of this country, danielpalos would be tried for treason.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Humorme said:


> After weeks of reading danielpalos never ending line of B.S. we have finally figured out what kind of snake oil this clown has been hawking.  Even the liberals steer clear of his nonsensical cow dung.
> 
> So, let's destroy all of his argument:
> 
> The Second Amendment reads:
> 
> "_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_"
> 
> danielpalos makes a number of false assumptions that simply do not exist in that wording.
> 
> 1)  The militia,* NOT *the people and *NOT *the Right, are the subject of the regulation wording
> 
> 2)  The regulation of the militia in no way, shape, fashion, or form affects the *Right of the people
> *
> 3)  Natural, God given, *unalienable,* absolute, inherent are not bestowed upon you by the government
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> 4)  danielpalos maintains that the only people who have a Right to keep and bear Arms is the militia.  This is irrational and false.  Here is a *court ruling* had to say:
> 
> "_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta_!"
> 
> *Nunn v. State,* 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is *NOT* a militia "right;"  it is a Right of the people that predates the Constitution and is above the law.
> 
> danielpalos cannot overcome the facts.  He is a self proclaimed socialist.  Another socialist (actually a National Socialist) that danielpalos loves to emulate once observed that it is easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than the plain truth that nobody ever heard before.  And so, our board troll accuses others of being clueless and causeless for rejecting socialism.  *IF* anyone were "_clueless_," you now know danielpalos motivation. I'm damn sure not "_clueless_,"  and if I were in charge of this country, danielpalos would be tried for treason.


Wrong.

The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not ‘absolute’ – they’re subject to restrictions by government consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”  

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

While it is true that our inalienable rights can neither be taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man, the people retain the authority to regulate those rights through the political process.

And when the people perceive their rights to have been violated the consequence of government overreach, they are at liberty to seek relief through the judicial process in Federal court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which alone may determine what the Constitution means and whether government (the people) has erred by enacting a given firearm regulatory measure that is contrary to Second Amendment case law.

A firearm regulatory measure is not un-Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules that it is – including bans on ‘assault weapons,’ magazine capacity restrictions, and universal background checks.

And to advocate for such regulatory measures is not to be ‘anti-Second Amendment,’ given the fact those measures are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights, which omits the concept of militia service.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *YOU* are the confused one.  Natural Rights predate the Constitution.  All the Second Amendment does is to guarantee that the already existing Right will not be infringed.  How can you be so wrong on this?
> 
> You're wrong; most court decisions prove that.  You can't sell your socialist nonsense to people who have a better understanding than that.
> 
> It's the Right that cannot be infringed.  Read the Amendment.
Click to expand...

The right of the People who are a well regulated militia not the People who are the unorganized militia.

You gave up your natural rights regarding that subject, with the ratification of our federal Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> After weeks of reading danielpalos never ending line of B.S. we have finally figured out what kind of snake oil this clown has been hawking.  Even the liberals steer clear of his nonsensical cow dung.
> 
> So, let's destroy all of his argument:
> 
> The Second Amendment reads:
> 
> "_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_"
> 
> danielpalos makes a number of false assumptions that simply do not exist in that wording.
> 
> 1)  The militia,* NOT *the people and *NOT *the Right, are the subject of the regulation wording
> 
> 2)  The regulation of the militia in no way, shape, fashion, or form affects the *Right of the people
> *
> 3)  Natural, God given, *unalienable,* absolute, inherent are not bestowed upon you by the government
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> 4)  danielpalos maintains that the only people who have a Right to keep and bear Arms is the militia.  This is irrational and false.  Here is a *court ruling* had to say:
> 
> "_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta_!"
> 
> *Nunn v. State,* 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is *NOT* a militia "right;"  it is a Right of the people that predates the Constitution and is above the law.
> 
> danielpalos cannot overcome the facts.  He is a self proclaimed socialist.  Another socialist (actually a National Socialist) that danielpalos loves to emulate once observed that it is easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than the plain truth that nobody ever heard before.  And so, our board troll accuses others of being clueless and causeless for rejecting socialism.  *IF* anyone were "_clueless_," you now know danielpalos motivation. I'm damn sure not "_clueless_,"  and if I were in charge of this country, danielpalos would be tried for treason.


the People are the Militia; only well regulated Militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.


----------



## Humorme

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> After weeks of reading danielpalos never ending line of B.S. we have finally figured out what kind of snake oil this clown has been hawking.  Even the liberals steer clear of his nonsensical cow dung.
> 
> So, let's destroy all of his argument:
> 
> The Second Amendment reads:
> 
> "_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_"
> 
> danielpalos makes a number of false assumptions that simply do not exist in that wording.
> 
> 1)  The militia,* NOT *the people and *NOT *the Right, are the subject of the regulation wording
> 
> 2)  The regulation of the militia in no way, shape, fashion, or form affects the *Right of the people
> *
> 3)  Natural, God given, *unalienable,* absolute, inherent are not bestowed upon you by the government
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> 4)  danielpalos maintains that the only people who have a Right to keep and bear Arms is the militia.  This is irrational and false.  Here is a *court ruling* had to say:
> 
> "_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta_!"
> 
> *Nunn v. State,* 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is *NOT* a militia "right;"  it is a Right of the people that predates the Constitution and is above the law.
> 
> danielpalos cannot overcome the facts.  He is a self proclaimed socialist.  Another socialist (actually a National Socialist) that danielpalos loves to emulate once observed that it is easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than the plain truth that nobody ever heard before.  And so, our board troll accuses others of being clueless and causeless for rejecting socialism.  *IF* anyone were "_clueless_," you now know danielpalos motivation. I'm damn sure not "_clueless_,"  and if I were in charge of this country, danielpalos would be tried for treason.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not ‘absolute’ – they’re subject to restrictions by government consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence:
> 
> “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> While it is true that our inalienable rights can neither be taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man, the people retain the authority to regulate those rights through the political process.
> 
> And when the people perceive their rights to have been violated the consequence of government overreach, they are at liberty to seek relief through the judicial process in Federal court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which alone may determine what the Constitution means and whether government (the people) has erred by enacting a given firearm regulatory measure that is contrary to Second Amendment case law.
> 
> A firearm regulatory measure is not un-Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules that it is – including bans on ‘assault weapons,’ magazine capacity restrictions, and universal background checks.
> 
> And to advocate for such regulatory measures is not to be ‘anti-Second Amendment,’ given the fact those measures are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
Click to expand...


Unfortunately, sir, *YOU ARE WRONG*.  The Heller decision attempted to undo centuries of established case precedent.  For example, take the case of Cockrum v. State:

"_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute*. He* does not derive it from the State government*. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because* it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*_."

Cockrum v. State  24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)

You opened with the statement that Rights are not absolute.  The original intent and the standing case law for centuries is 180 degrees opposite of what you're arguing.  I also noted that you ignored the last 50 or so posts on this thread.  You've been proven wrong by hundreds and hundreds of case citations all the way up to, and including, the *United States Supreme Court*.

The problem you have is twofold:

Heller went into saying "_Like most rights._.."  Okay, fine - the United States Supreme Court did not say all rights, they said most rights.  In English, that means that some rights ARE *absolute*.  The intent of our forefathers AND the decisions of all the earliest Courts referred to the Right to keep and bear Arms as *absolute*. 

The second problem you have is that America is divided over whether or not we have a "_living Constitution_" wherein the United States Supreme Court can jump in, at their own choosing, and over-rule the will of the people along with the original intent of the founders OR whether we should have an original / strict construction interpretation of the Constitution. 

According to Wikipedia:


"_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was *Bliss v. Commonwealth*. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."


Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

"_Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and *unalienable* rights of man_." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824

"_[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe_." *John Adams*, second president of the United States


How do you respond to the fact that the founders and the earliest courts *did not* support your position?  And you think the Heller decision can be upheld by, we the people?  Listen to our founders:

_"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."  _*George Washington*

A wise man once said that the greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government.  You have done little except to illustrate the need for the people to take the advice of our founding fathers while you join the in-house socialist in the destruction of the Republic.
_
 Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. _*Patrick Henry

FWIW, *I have never argued "_inalienable_" rights.  They are irrelevant.  That shows you have some homework to do in order to understand the differences in what Rights (rights) you have under our Constitution.  

Absolute - Natural - Inherent - God given - *Unalienable*


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> After weeks of reading danielpalos never ending line of B.S. we have finally figured out what kind of snake oil this clown has been hawking.  Even the liberals steer clear of his nonsensical cow dung.
> 
> So, let's destroy all of his argument:
> 
> The Second Amendment reads:
> 
> "_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_"
> 
> danielpalos makes a number of false assumptions that simply do not exist in that wording.
> 
> 1)  The militia,* NOT *the people and *NOT *the Right, are the subject of the regulation wording
> 
> 2)  The regulation of the militia in no way, shape, fashion, or form affects the *Right of the people
> *
> 3)  Natural, God given, *unalienable,* absolute, inherent are not bestowed upon you by the government
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> 4)  danielpalos maintains that the only people who have a Right to keep and bear Arms is the militia.  This is irrational and false.  Here is a *court ruling* had to say:
> 
> "_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta_!"
> 
> *Nunn v. State,* 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is *NOT* a militia "right;"  it is a Right of the people that predates the Constitution and is above the law.
> 
> danielpalos cannot overcome the facts.  He is a self proclaimed socialist.  Another socialist (actually a National Socialist) that danielpalos loves to emulate once observed that it is easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than the plain truth that nobody ever heard before.  And so, our board troll accuses others of being clueless and causeless for rejecting socialism.  *IF* anyone were "_clueless_," you now know danielpalos motivation. I'm damn sure not "_clueless_,"  and if I were in charge of this country, danielpalos would be tried for treason.
> 
> 
> 
> the People are the Militia; only well regulated Militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


A well regulated Internet being convenient to the entertainment of trolls, the right of socialists like danielpalos to post lies and idiocy shall not be infringed.  

I don't have to be in the militia in order to own a firearm.  The militia needs NO Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms.  Regulation is *not* gun bans, registration nor the creation of specially privileged classes of people able to own weapons.

danielpalos, if you don't like people owning firearms, try to take them.  Then get back to me.  Otherwise all you're posting is mental masturbation.  Even if you could outlaw weapons (and you can't), at least a million people know to build them and they will have them long after your bones are turning to dust.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Unfortunately, sir, *YOU ARE WRONG*.  The Heller decision attempted to undo centuries of established case precedent.  For example, take the case of Cockrum v. State:
> 
> "_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute*. He* does not derive it from the State government*. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because* it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*_."
> 
> Cockrum v. State  24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)


Who are you to claim someone wrong when you have yet to disprove anything? Cockrum v State has no bearing outside that individual state, on top of that that very state has changed its State Constitution since that ruling. State cases do not establish centuries of case precedent. SMFH



> You opened with the statement that Rights are not absolute.  The original intent and the standing case law for centuries is 180 degrees opposite of what you're arguing.  I also noted that you ignored the last 50 or so posts on this thread.  You've been proven wrong by hundreds and hundreds of case citations all the way up to, and including, the *United States Supreme Court*.


 Your case citations haven't proven anybody wrong but you yourself, since you fail in comprehending what the cases are actually stating. You really shouldn't try to post a paragraph out of its context and claim it means what you want it to.



> The problem you have is twofold:
> 
> Heller went into saying "_Like most rights._.."  Okay, fine - the United States Supreme Court did not say all rights, they said most rights.  In English, that means that some rights ARE *absolute*.  The intent of our forefathers AND the decisions of all the earliest Courts referred to the Right to keep and bear Arms as *absolute*.


WRONG, the intent and the earliest courts simply stated you have an absolute right to self defense. You only have a right to keep arms, provided you aren't a felon, etc.



> The second problem you have is that America is divided over whether or not we have a "_living Constitution_" wherein the United States Supreme Court can jump in, at their own choosing, and over-rule the will of the people along with the original intent of the founders OR whether we should have an original / strict construction interpretation of the Constitution.


The SCOTUS simply determines if a law is Constitutional or not, they do not over rule the people. Congress has the ability to change the law to bring it within the Constitution and nullify the SCOTUS Opinion or Congress can Amend the Constitution. Strict Constructionists are idiots, they have no understanding of actual history, instead they find quotes and phrases and try to make them mean something other than what they meant originally.



> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was *Bliss v. Commonwealth*. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia


That's right, you only have the right to bear arms in defense of yourself and the State.  This simply means you have the right to self defense, nothing more.



> "_Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and *unalienable* rights of man_." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
> 
> "_[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe_." *John Adams*, second president of the United States


Which has nothing to do with the right to keep/own/posses a weapon



> How do you respond to the fact that the founders and the earliest courts *did not* support your position?  And you think the Heller decision can be upheld by, we the people?  Listen to our founders:
> 
> _"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."  _*George Washington*


Nothing you have presented has disproven nor does it dosprove anybodies position, other then yours. You demonstrate your ignorance in English Comprehension.



> A wise man once said that the greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government.  You have done little except to illustrate the need for the people to take the advice of our founding fathers while you join the in-house socialist in the destruction of the Republic.
> _
> Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. _*Patrick Henry*


Nice theory but completely irrelevant.
*



			FWIW,
		
Click to expand...

*


> I have never argued "_inalienable_" rights.  They are irrelevant.  That shows you have some homework to do in order to understand the differences in what Rights (rights) you have under our Constitution.
> 
> Absolute - Natural - Inherent - God given - *Unalienable*


Inalienable and unalienable meant the same damn thing when the DoI was written. SMFH


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> No sir, danielpalos.  *YOU* are the only person who is confused.  Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms?  A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> 
> 
> Defense of self and property is a natural right.  Arms make that more practicable.
> 
> Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The difference, danielpalos, is that the *RIGHT *shall not be infringed.
> 
> No sir, danielpalos. *YOU* are the only person who is confused. Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms? A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *WRONG* again, danielpalos.  The *Right of the people* is what is protected by the Second Amendment.   The militia is necessary, but it is the *Right of the people* that is protected from infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


danielpalos, 

I have to keep coming back to your utter idiocy and challenge you to provide one, single, solitary fact in your favor.

*EVERY* court citation I've cited disagrees with your view.  I think what we need is a list of relevant cites and and explanation just for you.

"_The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man_."

- *Thomas Jefferson*, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776

Here is the author of the Declaration of Independence telling us his views on gun control.  Clearly one cannot make the case that this is related to the arming of a militia.

*John Adams*, the only Federalist president we ever had agreed that a free people ought to be armed. 

"_Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops_."
- *Noah Webster*, _An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution_, October 10, 1787

The advantage of an armed populace, one where everybody has a weapon insures that the government will not tyrannize the people.  We can argue back and forth about what the law is, but we would not have a country if the people believed that one must be in the militia in order to have a weapon.  

"..._the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone_..."
- *James Madison*, _Federalist No. 46_, January 29, 1788

The only thing you've made an understandable point about is that you think that the states somehow control the *Right to keep and bear Arms*.  In fact, they do not.  The state is charged with arming and equipping a militia at the state level.  And, in the times of Jefferson, Madison, the Adams, etc. they could not fathom the complex militaries of today nor the sheer numbers of people involved.

In order to under the mindset of the colonists, you need to back up and look at the laws that shaped our nation's history with respect to the *Right*.

*Connecticut's 1650 code* ordered that everyone “_above the age of sixteene years, except magistrates and church officers, shall bear arms.…; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continual readiness, a good musket or other gun, fit for service, and allowed by the clerk of the [militia] band_.…” [spelling modernized] Much like Massachusetts, poverty was not an excuse for not owning a gun. If you claimed that you were too poor to buy a gun, the militia clerk would sell you one. You were supposed to bring corn or other sellable goods to the clerk, who would issue you a weapon, and then sell the goods that you brought.

Guns throughout the 1700s were in short supply and generally imported so the founders had no idea of the situation we'd have relative to arms, militaries, etc.  But, you have to be honest above all else.

America was born in rebellion by a people that left the tyranny of King George to establish a nation built upon Liberty.  The bulk of the people could not fathom building a country with leaders like King George, yet by the time we got to King George, the Bush, we had the same kinds of leaders our forefathers fled from.  They would never have passed the kinds of laws you think ours amounts to.  

"_The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms_."
- Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788

What do you do with those kinds of quotes, danielpalos?  Pretend they don't exist?  You want it construed so that only a militia has the *Right*.  The courts disagreed with you.

"_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was *Bliss v. Commonwealth.* The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."



Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia

You're the one who keeps saying that the Right is "secured" in state constitutions... but, just like at the federal level, the courts interpret the law.  So, the* first* state court decision disagreed with your interpretation.  That is* persuasive authority* (in legalese) to disprove your claim.

In Georgia, the courts again issued an interpretation that disagrees with your interpretation:

“_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)

So, in 1846, another state disagreed with your assessment.  There is MORE *persuasive authority* to debunk your claim.

A few years later, the state of Texas weighed in:

"*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."

-*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
*
That is even more *persuasive authority* that debunks your claim.   

How can states look at the Second Amendment and find an *absolute and unqualified *Right to keep and bear Arms?  When states have imposed laws to infringe on the Second Amendment, the federal government has spanked them and reminded them:

The* HOLDING* in even the *Heller* decision refutes your interpretation.  It was HELD:

"_The Second Amendment protects an* individual right *to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_."

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

A holding is the bottom line.  And the bottom line since the first time a state court interpreted the Second Amendment is that it (the Second Amendment) protects an *individual Right *to keep and bear Arms And, furthermore, the standing precedent before Heller was simply this:

"_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." *This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_."

_*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)

Even without a state militia *or* the Second Amendment, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> After weeks of reading danielpalos never ending line of B.S. we have finally figured out what kind of snake oil this clown has been hawking.  Even the liberals steer clear of his nonsensical cow dung.
> 
> So, let's destroy all of his argument:
> 
> The Second Amendment reads:
> 
> "_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_"
> 
> danielpalos makes a number of false assumptions that simply do not exist in that wording.
> 
> 1)  The militia,* NOT *the people and *NOT *the Right, are the subject of the regulation wording
> 
> 2)  The regulation of the militia in no way, shape, fashion, or form affects the *Right of the people
> *
> 3)  Natural, God given, *unalienable,* absolute, inherent are not bestowed upon you by the government
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> 4)  danielpalos maintains that the only people who have a Right to keep and bear Arms is the militia.  This is irrational and false.  Here is a *court ruling* had to say:
> 
> "_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta_!"
> 
> *Nunn v. State,* 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is *NOT* a militia "right;"  it is a Right of the people that predates the Constitution and is above the law.
> 
> danielpalos cannot overcome the facts.  He is a self proclaimed socialist.  Another socialist (actually a National Socialist) that danielpalos loves to emulate once observed that it is easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than the plain truth that nobody ever heard before.  And so, our board troll accuses others of being clueless and causeless for rejecting socialism.  *IF* anyone were "_clueless_," you now know danielpalos motivation. I'm damn sure not "_clueless_,"  and if I were in charge of this country, danielpalos would be tried for treason.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not ‘absolute’ – they’re subject to restrictions by government consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence:
> 
> “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> While it is true that our inalienable rights can neither be taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man, the people retain the authority to regulate those rights through the political process.
> 
> And when the people perceive their rights to have been violated the consequence of government overreach, they are at liberty to seek relief through the judicial process in Federal court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which alone may determine what the Constitution means and whether government (the people) has erred by enacting a given firearm regulatory measure that is contrary to Second Amendment case law.
> 
> A firearm regulatory measure is not un-Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules that it is – including bans on ‘assault weapons,’ magazine capacity restrictions, and universal background checks.
> 
> And to advocate for such regulatory measures is not to be ‘anti-Second Amendment,’ given the fact those measures are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, sir, *YOU ARE WRONG*.  The Heller decision attempted to undo centuries of established case precedent.  For example, take the case of Cockrum v. State:
> 
> "_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute*. He* does not derive it from the State government*. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because* it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*_."
> 
> Cockrum v. State  24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)
> 
> You opened with the statement that Rights are not absolute.  The original intent and the standing case law for centuries is 180 degrees opposite of what you're arguing.  I also noted that you ignored the last 50 or so posts on this thread.  You've been proven wrong by hundreds and hundreds of case citations all the way up to, and including, the *United States Supreme Court*.
> 
> The problem you have is twofold:
> 
> Heller went into saying "_Like most rights._.."  Okay, fine - the United States Supreme Court did not say all rights, they said most rights.  In English, that means that some rights ARE *absolute*.  The intent of our forefathers AND the decisions of all the earliest Courts referred to the Right to keep and bear Arms as *absolute*.
> 
> The second problem you have is that America is divided over whether or not we have a "_living Constitution_" wherein the United States Supreme Court can jump in, at their own choosing, and over-rule the will of the people along with the original intent of the founders OR whether we should have an original / strict construction interpretation of the Constitution.
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was *Bliss v. Commonwealth*. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> "_Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and *unalienable* rights of man_." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
> 
> "_[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe_." *John Adams*, second president of the United States
> 
> 
> How do you respond to the fact that the founders and the earliest courts *did not* support your position?  And you think the Heller decision can be upheld by, we the people?  Listen to our founders:
> 
> _"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."  _*George Washington*
> 
> A wise man once said that the greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government.  You have done little except to illustrate the need for the people to take the advice of our founding fathers while you join the in-house socialist in the destruction of the Republic.
> _
> Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. _*Patrick Henry
> 
> FWIW, *I have never argued "_inalienable_" rights.  They are irrelevant.  That shows you have some homework to do in order to understand the differences in what Rights (rights) you have under our Constitution.
> 
> Absolute - Natural - Inherent - God given - *Unalienable*
Click to expand...

natural rights have nothing to with our Second Amendment; Because, our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> After weeks of reading danielpalos never ending line of B.S. we have finally figured out what kind of snake oil this clown has been hawking.  Even the liberals steer clear of his nonsensical cow dung.
> 
> So, let's destroy all of his argument:
> 
> The Second Amendment reads:
> 
> "_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_"
> 
> danielpalos makes a number of false assumptions that simply do not exist in that wording.
> 
> 1)  The militia,* NOT *the people and *NOT *the Right, are the subject of the regulation wording
> 
> 2)  The regulation of the militia in no way, shape, fashion, or form affects the *Right of the people
> *
> 3)  Natural, God given, *unalienable,* absolute, inherent are not bestowed upon you by the government
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> 4)  danielpalos maintains that the only people who have a Right to keep and bear Arms is the militia.  This is irrational and false.  Here is a *court ruling* had to say:
> 
> "_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta_!"
> 
> *Nunn v. State,* 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is *NOT* a militia "right;"  it is a Right of the people that predates the Constitution and is above the law.
> 
> danielpalos cannot overcome the facts.  He is a self proclaimed socialist.  Another socialist (actually a National Socialist) that danielpalos loves to emulate once observed that it is easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than the plain truth that nobody ever heard before.  And so, our board troll accuses others of being clueless and causeless for rejecting socialism.  *IF* anyone were "_clueless_," you now know danielpalos motivation. I'm damn sure not "_clueless_,"  and if I were in charge of this country, danielpalos would be tried for treason.
> 
> 
> 
> the People are the Militia; only well regulated Militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated Internet being convenient to the entertainment of trolls, the right of socialists like danielpalos to post lies and idiocy shall not be infringed.
> 
> I don't have to be in the militia in order to own a firearm.  The militia needs NO Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms.  Regulation is *not* gun bans, registration nor the creation of specially privileged classes of people able to own weapons.
> 
> danielpalos, if you don't like people owning firearms, try to take them.  Then get back to me.  Otherwise all you're posting is mental masturbation.  Even if you could outlaw weapons (and you can't), at least a million people know to build them and they will have them long after your bones are turning to dust.
Click to expand...

dear, You are a troll.  The People are the militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.  It really is that simple, except to the right wing.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Defense of self and property is a natural right.  Arms make that more practicable.
> 
> Only well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> See the difference?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The difference, danielpalos, is that the *RIGHT *shall not be infringed.
> 
> No sir, danielpalos. *YOU* are the only person who is confused. Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms? A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *WRONG* again, danielpalos.  The *Right of the people* is what is protected by the Second Amendment.   The militia is necessary, but it is the *Right of the people* that is protected from infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos,
> 
> I have to keep coming back to your utter idiocy and challenge you to provide one, single, solitary fact in your favor.
> 
> *EVERY* court citation I've cited disagrees with your view.  I think what we need is a list of relevant cites and and explanation just for you.
> 
> "_The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man_."
> 
> - *Thomas Jefferson*, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> Here is the author of the Declaration of Independence telling us his views on gun control.  Clearly one cannot make the case that this is related to the arming of a militia.
> 
> *John Adams*, the only Federalist president we ever had agreed that a free people ought to be armed.
> 
> "_Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops_."
> - *Noah Webster*, _An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution_, October 10, 1787
> 
> The advantage of an armed populace, one where everybody has a weapon insures that the government will not tyrannize the people.  We can argue back and forth about what the law is, but we would not have a country if the people believed that one must be in the militia in order to have a weapon.
> 
> "..._the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone_..."
> - *James Madison*, _Federalist No. 46_, January 29, 1788
> 
> The only thing you've made an understandable point about is that you think that the states somehow control the *Right to keep and bear Arms*.  In fact, they do not.  The state is charged with arming and equipping a militia at the state level.  And, in the times of Jefferson, Madison, the Adams, etc. they could not fathom the complex militaries of today nor the sheer numbers of people involved.
> 
> In order to under the mindset of the colonists, you need to back up and look at the laws that shaped our nation's history with respect to the *Right*.
> 
> *Connecticut's 1650 code* ordered that everyone “_above the age of sixteene years, except magistrates and church officers, shall bear arms.…; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continual readiness, a good musket or other gun, fit for service, and allowed by the clerk of the [militia] band_.…” [spelling modernized] Much like Massachusetts, poverty was not an excuse for not owning a gun. If you claimed that you were too poor to buy a gun, the militia clerk would sell you one. You were supposed to bring corn or other sellable goods to the clerk, who would issue you a weapon, and then sell the goods that you brought.
> 
> Guns throughout the 1700s were in short supply and generally imported so the founders had no idea of the situation we'd have relative to arms, militaries, etc.  But, you have to be honest above all else.
> 
> America was born in rebellion by a people that left the tyranny of King George to establish a nation built upon Liberty.  The bulk of the people could not fathom building a country with leaders like King George, yet by the time we got to King George, the Bush, we had the same kinds of leaders our forefathers fled from.  They would never have passed the kinds of laws you think ours amounts to.
> 
> "_The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms_."
> - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
> 
> What do you do with those kinds of quotes, danielpalos?  Pretend they don't exist?  You want it construed so that only a militia has the *Right*.  The courts disagreed with you.
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was *Bliss v. Commonwealth.* The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
> 
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> You're the one who keeps saying that the Right is "secured" in state constitutions... but, just like at the federal level, the courts interpret the law.  So, the* first* state court decision disagreed with your interpretation.  That is* persuasive authority* (in legalese) to disprove your claim.
> 
> In Georgia, the courts again issued an interpretation that disagrees with your interpretation:
> 
> “_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> So, in 1846, another state disagreed with your assessment.  There is MORE *persuasive authority* to debunk your claim.
> 
> A few years later, the state of Texas weighed in:
> 
> "*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."
> 
> -*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> *
> That is even more *persuasive authority* that debunks your claim.
> 
> How can states look at the Second Amendment and find an *absolute and unqualified *Right to keep and bear Arms?  When states have imposed laws to infringe on the Second Amendment, the federal government has spanked them and reminded them:
> 
> The* HOLDING* in even the *Heller* decision refutes your interpretation.  It was HELD:
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an* individual right *to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_."
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> A holding is the bottom line.  And the bottom line since the first time a state court interpreted the Second Amendment is that it (the Second Amendment) protects an *individual Right *to keep and bear Arms And, furthermore, the standing precedent before Heller was simply this:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." *This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
> 
> Even without a state militia *or* the Second Amendment, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms.
Click to expand...

How do you enforce natural rights, without social justice?


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> After weeks of reading danielpalos never ending line of B.S. we have finally figured out what kind of snake oil this clown has been hawking.  Even the liberals steer clear of his nonsensical cow dung.
> 
> So, let's destroy all of his argument:
> 
> The Second Amendment reads:
> 
> "_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_"
> 
> danielpalos makes a number of false assumptions that simply do not exist in that wording.
> 
> 1)  The militia,* NOT *the people and *NOT *the Right, are the subject of the regulation wording
> 
> 2)  The regulation of the militia in no way, shape, fashion, or form affects the *Right of the people
> *
> 3)  Natural, God given, *unalienable,* absolute, inherent are not bestowed upon you by the government
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> 4)  danielpalos maintains that the only people who have a Right to keep and bear Arms is the militia.  This is irrational and false.  Here is a *court ruling* had to say:
> 
> "_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta_!"
> 
> *Nunn v. State,* 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is *NOT* a militia "right;"  it is a Right of the people that predates the Constitution and is above the law.
> 
> danielpalos cannot overcome the facts.  He is a self proclaimed socialist.  Another socialist (actually a National Socialist) that danielpalos loves to emulate once observed that it is easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than the plain truth that nobody ever heard before.  And so, our board troll accuses others of being clueless and causeless for rejecting socialism.  *IF* anyone were "_clueless_," you now know danielpalos motivation. I'm damn sure not "_clueless_,"  and if I were in charge of this country, danielpalos would be tried for treason.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not ‘absolute’ – they’re subject to restrictions by government consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence:
> 
> “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> While it is true that our inalienable rights can neither be taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man, the people retain the authority to regulate those rights through the political process.
> 
> And when the people perceive their rights to have been violated the consequence of government overreach, they are at liberty to seek relief through the judicial process in Federal court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which alone may determine what the Constitution means and whether government (the people) has erred by enacting a given firearm regulatory measure that is contrary to Second Amendment case law.
> 
> A firearm regulatory measure is not un-Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules that it is – including bans on ‘assault weapons,’ magazine capacity restrictions, and universal background checks.
> 
> And to advocate for such regulatory measures is not to be ‘anti-Second Amendment,’ given the fact those measures are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, sir, *YOU ARE WRONG*.  The Heller decision attempted to undo centuries of established case precedent.  For example, take the case of Cockrum v. State:
> 
> "_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute*. He* does not derive it from the State government*. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because* it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*_."
> 
> Cockrum v. State  24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)
> 
> You opened with the statement that Rights are not absolute.  The original intent and the standing case law for centuries is 180 degrees opposite of what you're arguing.  I also noted that you ignored the last 50 or so posts on this thread.  You've been proven wrong by hundreds and hundreds of case citations all the way up to, and including, the *United States Supreme Court*.
> 
> The problem you have is twofold:
> 
> Heller went into saying "_Like most rights._.."  Okay, fine - the United States Supreme Court did not say all rights, they said most rights.  In English, that means that some rights ARE *absolute*.  The intent of our forefathers AND the decisions of all the earliest Courts referred to the Right to keep and bear Arms as *absolute*.
> 
> The second problem you have is that America is divided over whether or not we have a "_living Constitution_" wherein the United States Supreme Court can jump in, at their own choosing, and over-rule the will of the people along with the original intent of the founders OR whether we should have an original / strict construction interpretation of the Constitution.
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was *Bliss v. Commonwealth*. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> "_Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and *unalienable* rights of man_." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
> 
> "_[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe_." *John Adams*, second president of the United States
> 
> 
> How do you respond to the fact that the founders and the earliest courts *did not* support your position?  And you think the Heller decision can be upheld by, we the people?  Listen to our founders:
> 
> _"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."  _*George Washington*
> 
> A wise man once said that the greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government.  You have done little except to illustrate the need for the people to take the advice of our founding fathers while you join the in-house socialist in the destruction of the Republic.
> _
> Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. _*Patrick Henry
> 
> FWIW, *I have never argued "_inalienable_" rights.  They are irrelevant.  That shows you have some homework to do in order to understand the differences in what Rights (rights) you have under our Constitution.
> 
> Absolute - Natural - Inherent - God given - *Unalienable*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights have nothing to with our Second Amendment; Because, our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
Click to expand...



danielpalos, YOU are the only swinging dick around here claiming that Natural Rights have a damn thing to do with the Second Amendment.  

Your Rights existed before the adoption of the Constitution.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> After weeks of reading danielpalos never ending line of B.S. we have finally figured out what kind of snake oil this clown has been hawking.  Even the liberals steer clear of his nonsensical cow dung.
> 
> So, let's destroy all of his argument:
> 
> The Second Amendment reads:
> 
> "_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_"
> 
> danielpalos makes a number of false assumptions that simply do not exist in that wording.
> 
> 1)  The militia,* NOT *the people and *NOT *the Right, are the subject of the regulation wording
> 
> 2)  The regulation of the militia in no way, shape, fashion, or form affects the *Right of the people
> *
> 3)  Natural, God given, *unalienable,* absolute, inherent are not bestowed upon you by the government
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> 4)  danielpalos maintains that the only people who have a Right to keep and bear Arms is the militia.  This is irrational and false.  Here is a *court ruling* had to say:
> 
> "_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta_!"
> 
> *Nunn v. State,* 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is *NOT* a militia "right;"  it is a Right of the people that predates the Constitution and is above the law.
> 
> danielpalos cannot overcome the facts.  He is a self proclaimed socialist.  Another socialist (actually a National Socialist) that danielpalos loves to emulate once observed that it is easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than the plain truth that nobody ever heard before.  And so, our board troll accuses others of being clueless and causeless for rejecting socialism.  *IF* anyone were "_clueless_," you now know danielpalos motivation. I'm damn sure not "_clueless_,"  and if I were in charge of this country, danielpalos would be tried for treason.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not ‘absolute’ – they’re subject to restrictions by government consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence:
> 
> “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> While it is true that our inalienable rights can neither be taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man, the people retain the authority to regulate those rights through the political process.
> 
> And when the people perceive their rights to have been violated the consequence of government overreach, they are at liberty to seek relief through the judicial process in Federal court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which alone may determine what the Constitution means and whether government (the people) has erred by enacting a given firearm regulatory measure that is contrary to Second Amendment case law.
> 
> A firearm regulatory measure is not un-Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules that it is – including bans on ‘assault weapons,’ magazine capacity restrictions, and universal background checks.
> 
> And to advocate for such regulatory measures is not to be ‘anti-Second Amendment,’ given the fact those measures are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, sir, *YOU ARE WRONG*.  The Heller decision attempted to undo centuries of established case precedent.  For example, take the case of Cockrum v. State:
> 
> "_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute*. He* does not derive it from the State government*. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because* it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*_."
> 
> Cockrum v. State  24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)
> 
> You opened with the statement that Rights are not absolute.  The original intent and the standing case law for centuries is 180 degrees opposite of what you're arguing.  I also noted that you ignored the last 50 or so posts on this thread.  You've been proven wrong by hundreds and hundreds of case citations all the way up to, and including, the *United States Supreme Court*.
> 
> The problem you have is twofold:
> 
> Heller went into saying "_Like most rights._.."  Okay, fine - the United States Supreme Court did not say all rights, they said most rights.  In English, that means that some rights ARE *absolute*.  The intent of our forefathers AND the decisions of all the earliest Courts referred to the Right to keep and bear Arms as *absolute*.
> 
> The second problem you have is that America is divided over whether or not we have a "_living Constitution_" wherein the United States Supreme Court can jump in, at their own choosing, and over-rule the will of the people along with the original intent of the founders OR whether we should have an original / strict construction interpretation of the Constitution.
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was *Bliss v. Commonwealth*. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> "_Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and *unalienable* rights of man_." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
> 
> "_[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe_." *John Adams*, second president of the United States
> 
> 
> How do you respond to the fact that the founders and the earliest courts *did not* support your position?  And you think the Heller decision can be upheld by, we the people?  Listen to our founders:
> 
> _"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."  _*George Washington*
> 
> A wise man once said that the greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government.  You have done little except to illustrate the need for the people to take the advice of our founding fathers while you join the in-house socialist in the destruction of the Republic.
> _
> Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. _*Patrick Henry
> 
> FWIW, *I have never argued "_inalienable_" rights.  They are irrelevant.  That shows you have some homework to do in order to understand the differences in what Rights (rights) you have under our Constitution.
> 
> Absolute - Natural - Inherent - God given - *Unalienable*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights have nothing to with our Second Amendment; Because, our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos, YOU are the only swinging dick around here claiming that Natural Rights have a damn thing to do with the Second Amendment.
> 
> Your Rights existed before the adoption of the Constitution.
Click to expand...

No, I am not.  Natural rights have nothing to do with our Second Amendment; thus, well regulated militia have "precedence", when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The difference, danielpalos, is that the *RIGHT *shall not be infringed.
> 
> No sir, danielpalos. *YOU* are the only person who is confused. Make this simple for the reading audience:
> 
> Do you, danielpalos, as an individual believe that you have a Right to keep and bear Arms? A simple yes or no is all I ask.
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *WRONG* again, danielpalos.  The *Right of the people* is what is protected by the Second Amendment.   The militia is necessary, but it is the *Right of the people* that is protected from infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos,
> 
> I have to keep coming back to your utter idiocy and challenge you to provide one, single, solitary fact in your favor.
> 
> *EVERY* court citation I've cited disagrees with your view.  I think what we need is a list of relevant cites and and explanation just for you.
> 
> "_The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man_."
> 
> - *Thomas Jefferson*, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> Here is the author of the Declaration of Independence telling us his views on gun control.  Clearly one cannot make the case that this is related to the arming of a militia.
> 
> *John Adams*, the only Federalist president we ever had agreed that a free people ought to be armed.
> 
> "_Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops_."
> - *Noah Webster*, _An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution_, October 10, 1787
> 
> The advantage of an armed populace, one where everybody has a weapon insures that the government will not tyrannize the people.  We can argue back and forth about what the law is, but we would not have a country if the people believed that one must be in the militia in order to have a weapon.
> 
> "..._the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone_..."
> - *James Madison*, _Federalist No. 46_, January 29, 1788
> 
> The only thing you've made an understandable point about is that you think that the states somehow control the *Right to keep and bear Arms*.  In fact, they do not.  The state is charged with arming and equipping a militia at the state level.  And, in the times of Jefferson, Madison, the Adams, etc. they could not fathom the complex militaries of today nor the sheer numbers of people involved.
> 
> In order to under the mindset of the colonists, you need to back up and look at the laws that shaped our nation's history with respect to the *Right*.
> 
> *Connecticut's 1650 code* ordered that everyone “_above the age of sixteene years, except magistrates and church officers, shall bear arms.…; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continual readiness, a good musket or other gun, fit for service, and allowed by the clerk of the [militia] band_.…” [spelling modernized] Much like Massachusetts, poverty was not an excuse for not owning a gun. If you claimed that you were too poor to buy a gun, the militia clerk would sell you one. You were supposed to bring corn or other sellable goods to the clerk, who would issue you a weapon, and then sell the goods that you brought.
> 
> Guns throughout the 1700s were in short supply and generally imported so the founders had no idea of the situation we'd have relative to arms, militaries, etc.  But, you have to be honest above all else.
> 
> America was born in rebellion by a people that left the tyranny of King George to establish a nation built upon Liberty.  The bulk of the people could not fathom building a country with leaders like King George, yet by the time we got to King George, the Bush, we had the same kinds of leaders our forefathers fled from.  They would never have passed the kinds of laws you think ours amounts to.
> 
> "_The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms_."
> - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
> 
> What do you do with those kinds of quotes, danielpalos?  Pretend they don't exist?  You want it construed so that only a militia has the *Right*.  The courts disagreed with you.
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was *Bliss v. Commonwealth.* The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
> 
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> You're the one who keeps saying that the Right is "secured" in state constitutions... but, just like at the federal level, the courts interpret the law.  So, the* first* state court decision disagreed with your interpretation.  That is* persuasive authority* (in legalese) to disprove your claim.
> 
> In Georgia, the courts again issued an interpretation that disagrees with your interpretation:
> 
> “_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> So, in 1846, another state disagreed with your assessment.  There is MORE *persuasive authority* to debunk your claim.
> 
> A few years later, the state of Texas weighed in:
> 
> "*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."
> 
> -*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> *
> That is even more *persuasive authority* that debunks your claim.
> 
> How can states look at the Second Amendment and find an *absolute and unqualified *Right to keep and bear Arms?  When states have imposed laws to infringe on the Second Amendment, the federal government has spanked them and reminded them:
> 
> The* HOLDING* in even the *Heller* decision refutes your interpretation.  It was HELD:
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an* individual right *to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_."
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> A holding is the bottom line.  And the bottom line since the first time a state court interpreted the Second Amendment is that it (the Second Amendment) protects an *individual Right *to keep and bear Arms And, furthermore, the standing precedent before Heller was simply this:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." *This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
> 
> Even without a state militia *or* the Second Amendment, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you enforce natural rights, without social justice?
Click to expand...


You have to have a crime in order to administer justice.  What you're saying is meaningless and irrelevant to the issue at hand.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> After weeks of reading danielpalos never ending line of B.S. we have finally figured out what kind of snake oil this clown has been hawking.  Even the liberals steer clear of his nonsensical cow dung.
> 
> So, let's destroy all of his argument:
> 
> The Second Amendment reads:
> 
> "_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_"
> 
> danielpalos makes a number of false assumptions that simply do not exist in that wording.
> 
> 1)  The militia,* NOT *the people and *NOT *the Right, are the subject of the regulation wording
> 
> 2)  The regulation of the militia in no way, shape, fashion, or form affects the *Right of the people
> *
> 3)  Natural, God given, *unalienable,* absolute, inherent are not bestowed upon you by the government
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> 4)  danielpalos maintains that the only people who have a Right to keep and bear Arms is the militia.  This is irrational and false.  Here is a *court ruling* had to say:
> 
> "_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta_!"
> 
> *Nunn v. State,* 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is *NOT* a militia "right;"  it is a Right of the people that predates the Constitution and is above the law.
> 
> danielpalos cannot overcome the facts.  He is a self proclaimed socialist.  Another socialist (actually a National Socialist) that danielpalos loves to emulate once observed that it is easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than the plain truth that nobody ever heard before.  And so, our board troll accuses others of being clueless and causeless for rejecting socialism.  *IF* anyone were "_clueless_," you now know danielpalos motivation. I'm damn sure not "_clueless_,"  and if I were in charge of this country, danielpalos would be tried for treason.
> 
> 
> 
> the People are the Militia; only well regulated Militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated Internet being convenient to the entertainment of trolls, the right of socialists like danielpalos to post lies and idiocy shall not be infringed.
> 
> I don't have to be in the militia in order to own a firearm.  The militia needs NO Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms.  Regulation is *not* gun bans, registration nor the creation of specially privileged classes of people able to own weapons.
> 
> danielpalos, if you don't like people owning firearms, try to take them.  Then get back to me.  Otherwise all you're posting is mental masturbation.  Even if you could outlaw weapons (and you can't), at least a million people know to build them and they will have them long after your bones are turning to dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, You are a troll.  The People are the militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.  It really is that simple, except to the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not your faggoty ass fuck buddy.  Don't refer to me as "dear."  And quit reporting me if you're going to keep addressing me as if I were into your homosexual brotherhood.  I'm not.
> 
> *You* are the troll here.  Regardless of whether or not a militia is well regulated, the United States Supreme Court said you have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms, unconnected to the militia.
Click to expand...

I don't need to report anyone who is merely, full of fallacy.  I have a good argument, some clue and a Cause.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *WRONG* again, danielpalos.  The *Right of the people* is what is protected by the Second Amendment.   The militia is necessary, but it is the *Right of the people* that is protected from infringement.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos,
> 
> I have to keep coming back to your utter idiocy and challenge you to provide one, single, solitary fact in your favor.
> 
> *EVERY* court citation I've cited disagrees with your view.  I think what we need is a list of relevant cites and and explanation just for you.
> 
> "_The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man_."
> 
> - *Thomas Jefferson*, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> Here is the author of the Declaration of Independence telling us his views on gun control.  Clearly one cannot make the case that this is related to the arming of a militia.
> 
> *John Adams*, the only Federalist president we ever had agreed that a free people ought to be armed.
> 
> "_Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops_."
> - *Noah Webster*, _An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution_, October 10, 1787
> 
> The advantage of an armed populace, one where everybody has a weapon insures that the government will not tyrannize the people.  We can argue back and forth about what the law is, but we would not have a country if the people believed that one must be in the militia in order to have a weapon.
> 
> "..._the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone_..."
> - *James Madison*, _Federalist No. 46_, January 29, 1788
> 
> The only thing you've made an understandable point about is that you think that the states somehow control the *Right to keep and bear Arms*.  In fact, they do not.  The state is charged with arming and equipping a militia at the state level.  And, in the times of Jefferson, Madison, the Adams, etc. they could not fathom the complex militaries of today nor the sheer numbers of people involved.
> 
> In order to under the mindset of the colonists, you need to back up and look at the laws that shaped our nation's history with respect to the *Right*.
> 
> *Connecticut's 1650 code* ordered that everyone “_above the age of sixteene years, except magistrates and church officers, shall bear arms.…; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continual readiness, a good musket or other gun, fit for service, and allowed by the clerk of the [militia] band_.…” [spelling modernized] Much like Massachusetts, poverty was not an excuse for not owning a gun. If you claimed that you were too poor to buy a gun, the militia clerk would sell you one. You were supposed to bring corn or other sellable goods to the clerk, who would issue you a weapon, and then sell the goods that you brought.
> 
> Guns throughout the 1700s were in short supply and generally imported so the founders had no idea of the situation we'd have relative to arms, militaries, etc.  But, you have to be honest above all else.
> 
> America was born in rebellion by a people that left the tyranny of King George to establish a nation built upon Liberty.  The bulk of the people could not fathom building a country with leaders like King George, yet by the time we got to King George, the Bush, we had the same kinds of leaders our forefathers fled from.  They would never have passed the kinds of laws you think ours amounts to.
> 
> "_The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms_."
> - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
> 
> What do you do with those kinds of quotes, danielpalos?  Pretend they don't exist?  You want it construed so that only a militia has the *Right*.  The courts disagreed with you.
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was *Bliss v. Commonwealth.* The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
> 
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> You're the one who keeps saying that the Right is "secured" in state constitutions... but, just like at the federal level, the courts interpret the law.  So, the* first* state court decision disagreed with your interpretation.  That is* persuasive authority* (in legalese) to disprove your claim.
> 
> In Georgia, the courts again issued an interpretation that disagrees with your interpretation:
> 
> “_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> So, in 1846, another state disagreed with your assessment.  There is MORE *persuasive authority* to debunk your claim.
> 
> A few years later, the state of Texas weighed in:
> 
> "*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."
> 
> -*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> *
> That is even more *persuasive authority* that debunks your claim.
> 
> How can states look at the Second Amendment and find an *absolute and unqualified *Right to keep and bear Arms?  When states have imposed laws to infringe on the Second Amendment, the federal government has spanked them and reminded them:
> 
> The* HOLDING* in even the *Heller* decision refutes your interpretation.  It was HELD:
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an* individual right *to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_."
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> A holding is the bottom line.  And the bottom line since the first time a state court interpreted the Second Amendment is that it (the Second Amendment) protects an *individual Right *to keep and bear Arms And, furthermore, the standing precedent before Heller was simply this:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." *This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
> 
> Even without a state militia *or* the Second Amendment, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you enforce natural rights, without social justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to have a crime in order to administer justice.  What you're saying is meaningless and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
Click to expand...

In Nature, might makes right.  Social justice is for political animals.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> After weeks of reading danielpalos never ending line of B.S. we have finally figured out what kind of snake oil this clown has been hawking.  Even the liberals steer clear of his nonsensical cow dung.
> 
> So, let's destroy all of his argument:
> 
> The Second Amendment reads:
> 
> "_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_"
> 
> danielpalos makes a number of false assumptions that simply do not exist in that wording.
> 
> 1)  The militia,* NOT *the people and *NOT *the Right, are the subject of the regulation wording
> 
> 2)  The regulation of the militia in no way, shape, fashion, or form affects the *Right of the people
> *
> 3)  Natural, God given, *unalienable,* absolute, inherent are not bestowed upon you by the government
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> 4)  danielpalos maintains that the only people who have a Right to keep and bear Arms is the militia.  This is irrational and false.  Here is a *court ruling* had to say:
> 
> "_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta_!"
> 
> *Nunn v. State,* 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is *NOT* a militia "right;"  it is a Right of the people that predates the Constitution and is above the law.
> 
> danielpalos cannot overcome the facts.  He is a self proclaimed socialist.  Another socialist (actually a National Socialist) that danielpalos loves to emulate once observed that it is easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than the plain truth that nobody ever heard before.  And so, our board troll accuses others of being clueless and causeless for rejecting socialism.  *IF* anyone were "_clueless_," you now know danielpalos motivation. I'm damn sure not "_clueless_,"  and if I were in charge of this country, danielpalos would be tried for treason.
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not ‘absolute’ – they’re subject to restrictions by government consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence:
> 
> “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> While it is true that our inalienable rights can neither be taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man, the people retain the authority to regulate those rights through the political process.
> 
> And when the people perceive their rights to have been violated the consequence of government overreach, they are at liberty to seek relief through the judicial process in Federal court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which alone may determine what the Constitution means and whether government (the people) has erred by enacting a given firearm regulatory measure that is contrary to Second Amendment case law.
> 
> A firearm regulatory measure is not un-Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules that it is – including bans on ‘assault weapons,’ magazine capacity restrictions, and universal background checks.
> 
> And to advocate for such regulatory measures is not to be ‘anti-Second Amendment,’ given the fact those measures are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, sir, *YOU ARE WRONG*.  The Heller decision attempted to undo centuries of established case precedent.  For example, take the case of Cockrum v. State:
> 
> "_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute*. He* does not derive it from the State government*. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because* it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*_."
> 
> Cockrum v. State  24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)
> 
> You opened with the statement that Rights are not absolute.  The original intent and the standing case law for centuries is 180 degrees opposite of what you're arguing.  I also noted that you ignored the last 50 or so posts on this thread.  You've been proven wrong by hundreds and hundreds of case citations all the way up to, and including, the *United States Supreme Court*.
> 
> The problem you have is twofold:
> 
> Heller went into saying "_Like most rights._.."  Okay, fine - the United States Supreme Court did not say all rights, they said most rights.  In English, that means that some rights ARE *absolute*.  The intent of our forefathers AND the decisions of all the earliest Courts referred to the Right to keep and bear Arms as *absolute*.
> 
> The second problem you have is that America is divided over whether or not we have a "_living Constitution_" wherein the United States Supreme Court can jump in, at their own choosing, and over-rule the will of the people along with the original intent of the founders OR whether we should have an original / strict construction interpretation of the Constitution.
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was *Bliss v. Commonwealth*. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> "_Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and *unalienable* rights of man_." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
> 
> "_[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe_." *John Adams*, second president of the United States
> 
> 
> How do you respond to the fact that the founders and the earliest courts *did not* support your position?  And you think the Heller decision can be upheld by, we the people?  Listen to our founders:
> 
> _"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."  _*George Washington*
> 
> A wise man once said that the greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government.  You have done little except to illustrate the need for the people to take the advice of our founding fathers while you join the in-house socialist in the destruction of the Republic.
> _
> Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. _*Patrick Henry
> 
> FWIW, *I have never argued "_inalienable_" rights.  They are irrelevant.  That shows you have some homework to do in order to understand the differences in what Rights (rights) you have under our Constitution.
> 
> Absolute - Natural - Inherent - God given - *Unalienable*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights have nothing to with our Second Amendment; Because, our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos, YOU are the only swinging dick around here claiming that Natural Rights have a damn thing to do with the Second Amendment.
> 
> Your Rights existed before the adoption of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am not.  Natural rights have nothing to do with our Second Amendment; thus, well regulated militia have "precedence", when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
Click to expand...



Yes, you ARE a troll.  You keep manufacturing phony debates; you fail to answer simple questions that would lead to an end to this pissing match; you create strawmen; you avoid the facts; above all, you try to piss me off by pretending you're having a bromance with me.  If you love men, that's on you.  Leave me out of it.  I'm not your "_dear_." 

You are the only person that is arguing over natural rights.  *THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEITHER CREATES NOR SECURES NATURAL RIGHTS.  IT MERELY GUARANTEES US OUR GOD GIVEN, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE, NATURAL, INHERENT RIGHT
*
There is no other argument to be made there. Regardless of whether or not the militia is well regulated, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms as an* individual *Right.  That's not my opinion, sir.  That is an irrefutable FACT.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> *WRONG* again, danielpalos.  The *Right of the people* is what is protected by the Second Amendment.   The militia is necessary, but it is the *Right of the people* that is protected from infringement.
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos,
> 
> I have to keep coming back to your utter idiocy and challenge you to provide one, single, solitary fact in your favor.
> 
> *EVERY* court citation I've cited disagrees with your view.  I think what we need is a list of relevant cites and and explanation just for you.
> 
> "_The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man_."
> 
> - *Thomas Jefferson*, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> Here is the author of the Declaration of Independence telling us his views on gun control.  Clearly one cannot make the case that this is related to the arming of a militia.
> 
> *John Adams*, the only Federalist president we ever had agreed that a free people ought to be armed.
> 
> "_Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops_."
> - *Noah Webster*, _An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution_, October 10, 1787
> 
> The advantage of an armed populace, one where everybody has a weapon insures that the government will not tyrannize the people.  We can argue back and forth about what the law is, but we would not have a country if the people believed that one must be in the militia in order to have a weapon.
> 
> "..._the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone_..."
> - *James Madison*, _Federalist No. 46_, January 29, 1788
> 
> The only thing you've made an understandable point about is that you think that the states somehow control the *Right to keep and bear Arms*.  In fact, they do not.  The state is charged with arming and equipping a militia at the state level.  And, in the times of Jefferson, Madison, the Adams, etc. they could not fathom the complex militaries of today nor the sheer numbers of people involved.
> 
> In order to under the mindset of the colonists, you need to back up and look at the laws that shaped our nation's history with respect to the *Right*.
> 
> *Connecticut's 1650 code* ordered that everyone “_above the age of sixteene years, except magistrates and church officers, shall bear arms.…; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continual readiness, a good musket or other gun, fit for service, and allowed by the clerk of the [militia] band_.…” [spelling modernized] Much like Massachusetts, poverty was not an excuse for not owning a gun. If you claimed that you were too poor to buy a gun, the militia clerk would sell you one. You were supposed to bring corn or other sellable goods to the clerk, who would issue you a weapon, and then sell the goods that you brought.
> 
> Guns throughout the 1700s were in short supply and generally imported so the founders had no idea of the situation we'd have relative to arms, militaries, etc.  But, you have to be honest above all else.
> 
> America was born in rebellion by a people that left the tyranny of King George to establish a nation built upon Liberty.  The bulk of the people could not fathom building a country with leaders like King George, yet by the time we got to King George, the Bush, we had the same kinds of leaders our forefathers fled from.  They would never have passed the kinds of laws you think ours amounts to.
> 
> "_The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms_."
> - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
> 
> What do you do with those kinds of quotes, danielpalos?  Pretend they don't exist?  You want it construed so that only a militia has the *Right*.  The courts disagreed with you.
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was *Bliss v. Commonwealth.* The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
> 
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> You're the one who keeps saying that the Right is "secured" in state constitutions... but, just like at the federal level, the courts interpret the law.  So, the* first* state court decision disagreed with your interpretation.  That is* persuasive authority* (in legalese) to disprove your claim.
> 
> In Georgia, the courts again issued an interpretation that disagrees with your interpretation:
> 
> “_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> So, in 1846, another state disagreed with your assessment.  There is MORE *persuasive authority* to debunk your claim.
> 
> A few years later, the state of Texas weighed in:
> 
> "*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."
> 
> -*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> *
> That is even more *persuasive authority* that debunks your claim.
> 
> How can states look at the Second Amendment and find an *absolute and unqualified *Right to keep and bear Arms?  When states have imposed laws to infringe on the Second Amendment, the federal government has spanked them and reminded them:
> 
> The* HOLDING* in even the *Heller* decision refutes your interpretation.  It was HELD:
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an* individual right *to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_."
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> A holding is the bottom line.  And the bottom line since the first time a state court interpreted the Second Amendment is that it (the Second Amendment) protects an *individual Right *to keep and bear Arms And, furthermore, the standing precedent before Heller was simply this:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." *This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
> 
> Even without a state militia *or* the Second Amendment, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you enforce natural rights, without social justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to have a crime in order to administer justice.  What you're saying is meaningless and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Nature, might makes right.  Social justice is for political animals.
Click to expand...




danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> After weeks of reading danielpalos never ending line of B.S. we have finally figured out what kind of snake oil this clown has been hawking.  Even the liberals steer clear of his nonsensical cow dung.
> 
> So, let's destroy all of his argument:
> 
> The Second Amendment reads:
> 
> "_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_"
> 
> danielpalos makes a number of false assumptions that simply do not exist in that wording.
> 
> 1)  The militia,* NOT *the people and *NOT *the Right, are the subject of the regulation wording
> 
> 2)  The regulation of the militia in no way, shape, fashion, or form affects the *Right of the people
> *
> 3)  Natural, God given, *unalienable,* absolute, inherent are not bestowed upon you by the government
> 
> "_We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness_."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)
> 
> 4)  danielpalos maintains that the only people who have a Right to keep and bear Arms is the militia.  This is irrational and false.  Here is a *court ruling* had to say:
> 
> "_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta_!"
> 
> *Nunn v. State,* 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is *NOT* a militia "right;"  it is a Right of the people that predates the Constitution and is above the law.
> 
> danielpalos cannot overcome the facts.  He is a self proclaimed socialist.  Another socialist (actually a National Socialist) that danielpalos loves to emulate once observed that it is easier to believe a lie told a thousand times than the plain truth that nobody ever heard before.  And so, our board troll accuses others of being clueless and causeless for rejecting socialism.  *IF* anyone were "_clueless_," you now know danielpalos motivation. I'm damn sure not "_clueless_,"  and if I were in charge of this country, danielpalos would be tried for treason.
> 
> 
> 
> the People are the Militia; only well regulated Militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State, not the People who are the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated Internet being convenient to the entertainment of trolls, the right of socialists like danielpalos to post lies and idiocy shall not be infringed.
> 
> I don't have to be in the militia in order to own a firearm.  The militia needs NO Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms.  Regulation is *not* gun bans, registration nor the creation of specially privileged classes of people able to own weapons.
> 
> danielpalos, if you don't like people owning firearms, try to take them.  Then get back to me.  Otherwise all you're posting is mental masturbation.  Even if you could outlaw weapons (and you can't), at least a million people know to build them and they will have them long after your bones are turning to dust.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dear, You are a troll.  The People are the militia; you are either well regulated or you are not.  It really is that simple, except to the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'm not your faggoty ass fuck buddy.  Don't refer to me as "dear."  And quit reporting me if you're going to keep addressing me as if I were into your homosexual brotherhood.  I'm not.
> 
> *You* are the troll here.  Regardless of whether or not a militia is well regulated, the United States Supreme Court said you have an individual Right to keep and bear Arms, unconnected to the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I don't need to report anyone who is merely, full of fallacy.  I have a good argument, some clue and a Cause.
Click to expand...


No you do not have a "_cause_." .  You have never stated any cause, despite numerous attempts to get you off your high horse and state same and you are the most clueless poster on this board.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> *WRONG* again, danielpalos.  The *Right of the people* is what is protected by the Second Amendment.   The militia is necessary, but it is the *Right of the people* that is protected from infringement.
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos,
> 
> I have to keep coming back to your utter idiocy and challenge you to provide one, single, solitary fact in your favor.
> 
> *EVERY* court citation I've cited disagrees with your view.  I think what we need is a list of relevant cites and and explanation just for you.
> 
> "_The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man_."
> 
> - *Thomas Jefferson*, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> Here is the author of the Declaration of Independence telling us his views on gun control.  Clearly one cannot make the case that this is related to the arming of a militia.
> 
> *John Adams*, the only Federalist president we ever had agreed that a free people ought to be armed.
> 
> "_Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops_."
> - *Noah Webster*, _An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution_, October 10, 1787
> 
> The advantage of an armed populace, one where everybody has a weapon insures that the government will not tyrannize the people.  We can argue back and forth about what the law is, but we would not have a country if the people believed that one must be in the militia in order to have a weapon.
> 
> "..._the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone_..."
> - *James Madison*, _Federalist No. 46_, January 29, 1788
> 
> The only thing you've made an understandable point about is that you think that the states somehow control the *Right to keep and bear Arms*.  In fact, they do not.  The state is charged with arming and equipping a militia at the state level.  And, in the times of Jefferson, Madison, the Adams, etc. they could not fathom the complex militaries of today nor the sheer numbers of people involved.
> 
> In order to under the mindset of the colonists, you need to back up and look at the laws that shaped our nation's history with respect to the *Right*.
> 
> *Connecticut's 1650 code* ordered that everyone “_above the age of sixteene years, except magistrates and church officers, shall bear arms.…; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continual readiness, a good musket or other gun, fit for service, and allowed by the clerk of the [militia] band_.…” [spelling modernized] Much like Massachusetts, poverty was not an excuse for not owning a gun. If you claimed that you were too poor to buy a gun, the militia clerk would sell you one. You were supposed to bring corn or other sellable goods to the clerk, who would issue you a weapon, and then sell the goods that you brought.
> 
> Guns throughout the 1700s were in short supply and generally imported so the founders had no idea of the situation we'd have relative to arms, militaries, etc.  But, you have to be honest above all else.
> 
> America was born in rebellion by a people that left the tyranny of King George to establish a nation built upon Liberty.  The bulk of the people could not fathom building a country with leaders like King George, yet by the time we got to King George, the Bush, we had the same kinds of leaders our forefathers fled from.  They would never have passed the kinds of laws you think ours amounts to.
> 
> "_The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms_."
> - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
> 
> What do you do with those kinds of quotes, danielpalos?  Pretend they don't exist?  You want it construed so that only a militia has the *Right*.  The courts disagreed with you.
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was *Bliss v. Commonwealth.* The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
> 
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> You're the one who keeps saying that the Right is "secured" in state constitutions... but, just like at the federal level, the courts interpret the law.  So, the* first* state court decision disagreed with your interpretation.  That is* persuasive authority* (in legalese) to disprove your claim.
> 
> In Georgia, the courts again issued an interpretation that disagrees with your interpretation:
> 
> “_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> So, in 1846, another state disagreed with your assessment.  There is MORE *persuasive authority* to debunk your claim.
> 
> A few years later, the state of Texas weighed in:
> 
> "*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."
> 
> -*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> *
> That is even more *persuasive authority* that debunks your claim.
> 
> How can states look at the Second Amendment and find an *absolute and unqualified *Right to keep and bear Arms?  When states have imposed laws to infringe on the Second Amendment, the federal government has spanked them and reminded them:
> 
> The* HOLDING* in even the *Heller* decision refutes your interpretation.  It was HELD:
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an* individual right *to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_."
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> A holding is the bottom line.  And the bottom line since the first time a state court interpreted the Second Amendment is that it (the Second Amendment) protects an *individual Right *to keep and bear Arms And, furthermore, the standing precedent before Heller was simply this:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." *This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
> 
> Even without a state militia *or* the Second Amendment, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you enforce natural rights, without social justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to have a crime in order to administer justice.  What you're saying is meaningless and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Nature, might makes right.  Social justice is for political animals.
Click to expand...


According to Wikipedia:

_*"Social justice* is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges_."

Social justice - Wikipedia

There are no _"terms_" for a Right.  Either you have the Right or you do not.  It's not a negotiation.  America was not founded on socialism.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> C_Clayton_Jones said:
> 
> 
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> The rights enshrined in the Second Amendment are not ‘absolute’ – they’re subject to restrictions by government consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence:
> 
> “Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose:  For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues.”
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> While it is true that our inalienable rights can neither be taken nor bestowed by any government, constitution, or man, the people retain the authority to regulate those rights through the political process.
> 
> And when the people perceive their rights to have been violated the consequence of government overreach, they are at liberty to seek relief through the judicial process in Federal court, and ultimately the Supreme Court, which alone may determine what the Constitution means and whether government (the people) has erred by enacting a given firearm regulatory measure that is contrary to Second Amendment case law.
> 
> A firearm regulatory measure is not un-Constitutional until such time as the Supreme Court rules that it is – including bans on ‘assault weapons,’ magazine capacity restrictions, and universal background checks.
> 
> And to advocate for such regulatory measures is not to be ‘anti-Second Amendment,’ given the fact those measures are consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, sir, *YOU ARE WRONG*.  The Heller decision attempted to undo centuries of established case precedent.  For example, take the case of Cockrum v. State:
> 
> "_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute*. He* does not derive it from the State government*. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because* it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*_."
> 
> Cockrum v. State  24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)
> 
> You opened with the statement that Rights are not absolute.  The original intent and the standing case law for centuries is 180 degrees opposite of what you're arguing.  I also noted that you ignored the last 50 or so posts on this thread.  You've been proven wrong by hundreds and hundreds of case citations all the way up to, and including, the *United States Supreme Court*.
> 
> The problem you have is twofold:
> 
> Heller went into saying "_Like most rights._.."  Okay, fine - the United States Supreme Court did not say all rights, they said most rights.  In English, that means that some rights ARE *absolute*.  The intent of our forefathers AND the decisions of all the earliest Courts referred to the Right to keep and bear Arms as *absolute*.
> 
> The second problem you have is that America is divided over whether or not we have a "_living Constitution_" wherein the United States Supreme Court can jump in, at their own choosing, and over-rule the will of the people along with the original intent of the founders OR whether we should have an original / strict construction interpretation of the Constitution.
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was *Bliss v. Commonwealth*. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> "_Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and *unalienable* rights of man_." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
> 
> "_[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe_." *John Adams*, second president of the United States
> 
> 
> How do you respond to the fact that the founders and the earliest courts *did not* support your position?  And you think the Heller decision can be upheld by, we the people?  Listen to our founders:
> 
> _"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."  _*George Washington*
> 
> A wise man once said that the greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government.  You have done little except to illustrate the need for the people to take the advice of our founding fathers while you join the in-house socialist in the destruction of the Republic.
> _
> Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. _*Patrick Henry
> 
> FWIW, *I have never argued "_inalienable_" rights.  They are irrelevant.  That shows you have some homework to do in order to understand the differences in what Rights (rights) you have under our Constitution.
> 
> Absolute - Natural - Inherent - God given - *Unalienable*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> natural rights have nothing to with our Second Amendment; Because, our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos, YOU are the only swinging dick around here claiming that Natural Rights have a damn thing to do with the Second Amendment.
> 
> Your Rights existed before the adoption of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am not.  Natural rights have nothing to do with our Second Amendment; thus, well regulated militia have "precedence", when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you ARE a troll.  You keep manufacturing phony debates; you fail to answer simple questions that would lead to an end to this pissing match; you create strawmen; you avoid the facts; above all, you try to piss me off by pretending you're having a bromance with me.  If you love men, that's on you.  Leave me out of it.  I'm not your "_dear_."
> 
> You are the only person that is arguing over natural rights.  *THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEITHER CREATES NOR SECURES NATURAL RIGHTS.  IT MERELY GUARANTEES US OUR GOD GIVEN, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE, NATURAL, INHERENT RIGHT
> *
> There is no other argument to be made there. Regardless of whether or not the militia is well regulated, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms as an* individual *Right.  That's not my opinion, sir.  That is an irrefutable FACT.
Click to expand...

How about this; what if, one Individual disagrees with another Individual, over the meaning of natural rights?


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> Only well regulated militia enjoy that right, not the unorganized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos,
> 
> I have to keep coming back to your utter idiocy and challenge you to provide one, single, solitary fact in your favor.
> 
> *EVERY* court citation I've cited disagrees with your view.  I think what we need is a list of relevant cites and and explanation just for you.
> 
> "_The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man_."
> 
> - *Thomas Jefferson*, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> Here is the author of the Declaration of Independence telling us his views on gun control.  Clearly one cannot make the case that this is related to the arming of a militia.
> 
> *John Adams*, the only Federalist president we ever had agreed that a free people ought to be armed.
> 
> "_Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops_."
> - *Noah Webster*, _An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution_, October 10, 1787
> 
> The advantage of an armed populace, one where everybody has a weapon insures that the government will not tyrannize the people.  We can argue back and forth about what the law is, but we would not have a country if the people believed that one must be in the militia in order to have a weapon.
> 
> "..._the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone_..."
> - *James Madison*, _Federalist No. 46_, January 29, 1788
> 
> The only thing you've made an understandable point about is that you think that the states somehow control the *Right to keep and bear Arms*.  In fact, they do not.  The state is charged with arming and equipping a militia at the state level.  And, in the times of Jefferson, Madison, the Adams, etc. they could not fathom the complex militaries of today nor the sheer numbers of people involved.
> 
> In order to under the mindset of the colonists, you need to back up and look at the laws that shaped our nation's history with respect to the *Right*.
> 
> *Connecticut's 1650 code* ordered that everyone “_above the age of sixteene years, except magistrates and church officers, shall bear arms.…; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continual readiness, a good musket or other gun, fit for service, and allowed by the clerk of the [militia] band_.…” [spelling modernized] Much like Massachusetts, poverty was not an excuse for not owning a gun. If you claimed that you were too poor to buy a gun, the militia clerk would sell you one. You were supposed to bring corn or other sellable goods to the clerk, who would issue you a weapon, and then sell the goods that you brought.
> 
> Guns throughout the 1700s were in short supply and generally imported so the founders had no idea of the situation we'd have relative to arms, militaries, etc.  But, you have to be honest above all else.
> 
> America was born in rebellion by a people that left the tyranny of King George to establish a nation built upon Liberty.  The bulk of the people could not fathom building a country with leaders like King George, yet by the time we got to King George, the Bush, we had the same kinds of leaders our forefathers fled from.  They would never have passed the kinds of laws you think ours amounts to.
> 
> "_The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms_."
> - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
> 
> What do you do with those kinds of quotes, danielpalos?  Pretend they don't exist?  You want it construed so that only a militia has the *Right*.  The courts disagreed with you.
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was *Bliss v. Commonwealth.* The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
> 
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> You're the one who keeps saying that the Right is "secured" in state constitutions... but, just like at the federal level, the courts interpret the law.  So, the* first* state court decision disagreed with your interpretation.  That is* persuasive authority* (in legalese) to disprove your claim.
> 
> In Georgia, the courts again issued an interpretation that disagrees with your interpretation:
> 
> “_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> So, in 1846, another state disagreed with your assessment.  There is MORE *persuasive authority* to debunk your claim.
> 
> A few years later, the state of Texas weighed in:
> 
> "*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."
> 
> -*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> *
> That is even more *persuasive authority* that debunks your claim.
> 
> How can states look at the Second Amendment and find an *absolute and unqualified *Right to keep and bear Arms?  When states have imposed laws to infringe on the Second Amendment, the federal government has spanked them and reminded them:
> 
> The* HOLDING* in even the *Heller* decision refutes your interpretation.  It was HELD:
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an* individual right *to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_."
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> A holding is the bottom line.  And the bottom line since the first time a state court interpreted the Second Amendment is that it (the Second Amendment) protects an *individual Right *to keep and bear Arms And, furthermore, the standing precedent before Heller was simply this:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." *This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
> 
> Even without a state militia *or* the Second Amendment, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How do you enforce natural rights, without social justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to have a crime in order to administer justice.  What you're saying is meaningless and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Nature, might makes right.  Social justice is for political animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> _*"Social justice* is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges_."
> 
> Social justice - Wikipedia
> 
> There are no _"terms_" for a Right.  Either you have the Right or you do not.  It's not a negotiation.  America was not founded on socialism.
Click to expand...

Privileges and immunities, is the legal term in our federal Constitution.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unfortunately, sir, *YOU ARE WRONG*.  The Heller decision attempted to undo centuries of established case precedent.  For example, take the case of Cockrum v. State:
> 
> "_The right of a citizen to bear arms, in lawful defense of himself or the State, is *absolute*. He* does not derive it from the State government*. It is one of the "high powers" delegated directly to the citizen, and is excepted out of the general powers of government.' A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it, because* it is above the law, and independent of the lawmaking power*_."
> 
> Cockrum v. State  24 Tex. 394, at 401-402 (1859)
> 
> You opened with the statement that Rights are not absolute.  The original intent and the standing case law for centuries is 180 degrees opposite of what you're arguing.  I also noted that you ignored the last 50 or so posts on this thread.  You've been proven wrong by hundreds and hundreds of case citations all the way up to, and including, the *United States Supreme Court*.
> 
> The problem you have is twofold:
> 
> Heller went into saying "_Like most rights._.."  Okay, fine - the United States Supreme Court did not say all rights, they said most rights.  In English, that means that some rights ARE *absolute*.  The intent of our forefathers AND the decisions of all the earliest Courts referred to the Right to keep and bear Arms as *absolute*.
> 
> The second problem you have is that America is divided over whether or not we have a "_living Constitution_" wherein the United States Supreme Court can jump in, at their own choosing, and over-rule the will of the people along with the original intent of the founders OR whether we should have an original / strict construction interpretation of the Constitution.
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was *Bliss v. Commonwealth*. The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> "_Nothing... is unchangeable but the inherent and *unalienable* rights of man_." --Thomas Jefferson to John Cartwright, 1824
> 
> "_[You have Rights] antecedent to all earthly governments: Rights, that cannot be repealed or restrained by human laws; Rights, derived from the Great Legislator of the universe_." *John Adams*, second president of the United States
> 
> 
> How do you respond to the fact that the founders and the earliest courts *did not* support your position?  And you think the Heller decision can be upheld by, we the people?  Listen to our founders:
> 
> _"If in the opinion of the people the distribution or modification of the constitutional powers be in any particular wrong, let it be corrected by an amendment in the way which the Constitution designates. But let there be no change by usurpation; for though this in one instance may be the instrument of good, it is the customary weapon by which free governments are destroyed."  _*George Washington*
> 
> A wise man once said that the greatest reason to retain the Right to keep and bear Arms is, as a last resort, to prevent tyranny in government.  You have done little except to illustrate the need for the people to take the advice of our founding fathers while you join the in-house socialist in the destruction of the Republic.
> _
> Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined. _*Patrick Henry
> 
> FWIW, *I have never argued "_inalienable_" rights.  They are irrelevant.  That shows you have some homework to do in order to understand the differences in what Rights (rights) you have under our Constitution.
> 
> Absolute - Natural - Inherent - God given - *Unalienable*
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights have nothing to with our Second Amendment; Because, our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos, YOU are the only swinging dick around here claiming that Natural Rights have a damn thing to do with the Second Amendment.
> 
> Your Rights existed before the adoption of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am not.  Natural rights have nothing to do with our Second Amendment; thus, well regulated militia have "precedence", when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you ARE a troll.  You keep manufacturing phony debates; you fail to answer simple questions that would lead to an end to this pissing match; you create strawmen; you avoid the facts; above all, you try to piss me off by pretending you're having a bromance with me.  If you love men, that's on you.  Leave me out of it.  I'm not your "_dear_."
> 
> You are the only person that is arguing over natural rights.  *THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEITHER CREATES NOR SECURES NATURAL RIGHTS.  IT MERELY GUARANTEES US OUR GOD GIVEN, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE, NATURAL, INHERENT RIGHT
> *
> There is no other argument to be made there. Regardless of whether or not the militia is well regulated, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms as an* individual *Right.  That's not my opinion, sir.  That is an irrefutable FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about this; what if, one Individual disagrees with another Individual, over the meaning of natural rights?
Click to expand...


When there is a disagreement, the proper forum is the courts.  The courts then interpret the legal meaning of the words.  Why else do you think I have quoted the courts in their interpretation of the word "*absolute*" over and over and over again?

If you disagree with the courts, you state your objection and provide references that may make people think differently... just as I did with challenging the Supreme Court's power to legislate from the bench.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> natural rights have nothing to with our Second Amendment; Because, our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos, YOU are the only swinging dick around here claiming that Natural Rights have a damn thing to do with the Second Amendment.
> 
> Your Rights existed before the adoption of the Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am not.  Natural rights have nothing to do with our Second Amendment; thus, well regulated militia have "precedence", when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you ARE a troll.  You keep manufacturing phony debates; you fail to answer simple questions that would lead to an end to this pissing match; you create strawmen; you avoid the facts; above all, you try to piss me off by pretending you're having a bromance with me.  If you love men, that's on you.  Leave me out of it.  I'm not your "_dear_."
> 
> You are the only person that is arguing over natural rights.  *THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEITHER CREATES NOR SECURES NATURAL RIGHTS.  IT MERELY GUARANTEES US OUR GOD GIVEN, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE, NATURAL, INHERENT RIGHT
> *
> There is no other argument to be made there. Regardless of whether or not the militia is well regulated, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms as an* individual *Right.  That's not my opinion, sir.  That is an irrefutable FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about this; what if, one Individual disagrees with another Individual, over the meaning of natural rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When there is a disagreement, the proper forum is the courts.  The courts then interpret the legal meaning of the words.  Why else do you think I have quoted the courts in their interpretation of the word "*absolute*" over and over and over again?
> 
> If you disagree with the courts, you state your objection and provide references that may make people think differently... just as I did with challenging the Supreme Court's power to legislate from the bench.
Click to expand...

Social justice or public justice, not private justice.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos,
> 
> I have to keep coming back to your utter idiocy and challenge you to provide one, single, solitary fact in your favor.
> 
> *EVERY* court citation I've cited disagrees with your view.  I think what we need is a list of relevant cites and and explanation just for you.
> 
> "_The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes.... Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man_."
> 
> - *Thomas Jefferson*, _Commonplace Book_ (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
> 
> Here is the author of the Declaration of Independence telling us his views on gun control.  Clearly one cannot make the case that this is related to the arming of a militia.
> 
> *John Adams*, the only Federalist president we ever had agreed that a free people ought to be armed.
> 
> "_Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops_."
> - *Noah Webster*, _An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution_, October 10, 1787
> 
> The advantage of an armed populace, one where everybody has a weapon insures that the government will not tyrannize the people.  We can argue back and forth about what the law is, but we would not have a country if the people believed that one must be in the militia in order to have a weapon.
> 
> "..._the ultimate authority, wherever the derivative may be found, resides in the people alone_..."
> - *James Madison*, _Federalist No. 46_, January 29, 1788
> 
> The only thing you've made an understandable point about is that you think that the states somehow control the *Right to keep and bear Arms*.  In fact, they do not.  The state is charged with arming and equipping a militia at the state level.  And, in the times of Jefferson, Madison, the Adams, etc. they could not fathom the complex militaries of today nor the sheer numbers of people involved.
> 
> In order to under the mindset of the colonists, you need to back up and look at the laws that shaped our nation's history with respect to the *Right*.
> 
> *Connecticut's 1650 code* ordered that everyone “_above the age of sixteene years, except magistrates and church officers, shall bear arms.…; and every male person with this jurisdiction, above the said age, shall have in continual readiness, a good musket or other gun, fit for service, and allowed by the clerk of the [militia] band_.…” [spelling modernized] Much like Massachusetts, poverty was not an excuse for not owning a gun. If you claimed that you were too poor to buy a gun, the militia clerk would sell you one. You were supposed to bring corn or other sellable goods to the clerk, who would issue you a weapon, and then sell the goods that you brought.
> 
> Guns throughout the 1700s were in short supply and generally imported so the founders had no idea of the situation we'd have relative to arms, militaries, etc.  But, you have to be honest above all else.
> 
> America was born in rebellion by a people that left the tyranny of King George to establish a nation built upon Liberty.  The bulk of the people could not fathom building a country with leaders like King George, yet by the time we got to King George, the Bush, we had the same kinds of leaders our forefathers fled from.  They would never have passed the kinds of laws you think ours amounts to.
> 
> "_The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms_."
> - Samuel Adams, Massachusetts Ratifying Convention, 1788
> 
> What do you do with those kinds of quotes, danielpalos?  Pretend they don't exist?  You want it construed so that only a militia has the *Right*.  The courts disagreed with you.
> 
> "_The first state court decision resulting from the "right to bear arms" issue was *Bliss v. Commonwealth.* The court held that "the right of citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State must be preserved entire, ..." "This holding was unique because it stated that the right to bear arms is *absolute* and unqualified_."
> 
> 
> 
> Right to keep and bear arms in the United States - Wikipedia
> 
> You're the one who keeps saying that the Right is "secured" in state constitutions... but, just like at the federal level, the courts interpret the law.  So, the* first* state court decision disagreed with your interpretation.  That is* persuasive authority* (in legalese) to disprove your claim.
> 
> In Georgia, the courts again issued an interpretation that disagrees with your interpretation:
> 
> “_The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed." *The right of the whole people, old and young, men, women and boys, and not militia only, to keep and bear arms of every description, not such merely as are used by the militia, shall not be infringed, curtailed, or broken in upon, in the smallest degree*; and all this for the important end to be attained: the rearing up and qualifying a well-regulated militia, so vitally necessary to the security of a free State. Our opinion is, that any law, State or Federal, is repugnant to the Constitution, and void, which contravenes this right, originally belonging to our forefathers, trampled under foot by Charles I. and his two wicked sons and successors, reestablished by the revolution of 1688, conveyed to this land of liberty by the colonists, and finally incorporated conspicuously in our own Magna Charta!_” Nunn v State 1 Ga. (1 Kel.) 243 (1846)
> 
> So, in 1846, another state disagreed with your assessment.  There is MORE *persuasive authority* to debunk your claim.
> 
> A few years later, the state of Texas weighed in:
> 
> "*The right of a citizen to bear arms in lawful defense of himself or the State*_, _*is absolute*_. He does not derive it from the State government. _*It is one of the high powers delegated directly to the citizen*_, and is excepted _*out *_of the general powers of government. _*A law cannot be passed to infringe upon or impair it*_, _*because it is above the law*_, _*and independent of the lawmaking power*."
> 
> -*Cockrum v. State, 24 Tex. 394 (1859)
> *
> That is even more *persuasive authority* that debunks your claim.
> 
> How can states look at the Second Amendment and find an *absolute and unqualified *Right to keep and bear Arms?  When states have imposed laws to infringe on the Second Amendment, the federal government has spanked them and reminded them:
> 
> The* HOLDING* in even the *Heller* decision refutes your interpretation.  It was HELD:
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an* individual right *to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_."
> 
> DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
> 
> A holding is the bottom line.  And the bottom line since the first time a state court interpreted the Second Amendment is that it (the Second Amendment) protects an *individual Right *to keep and bear Arms And, furthermore, the standing precedent before Heller was simply this:
> 
> "_The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." *This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence*_."
> 
> _*United States v. Cruikshank*_, 92 U.S. 542 (1875)
> 
> Even without a state militia *or* the Second Amendment, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms.
> 
> 
> 
> How do you enforce natural rights, without social justice?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have to have a crime in order to administer justice.  What you're saying is meaningless and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Nature, might makes right.  Social justice is for political animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> _*"Social justice* is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges_."
> 
> Social justice - Wikipedia
> 
> There are no _"terms_" for a Right.  Either you have the Right or you do not.  It's not a negotiation.  America was not founded on socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Privileges and immunities, is the legal term in our federal Constitution.
Click to expand...


So your theory is that the 14th Amendment nullified all of your *unalienable* Rights?

I take that issue on quite regularly:

The 14th Amendment Clarified, Citizenship, Constitution of the United States of America, Supreme Law

The Two United States, Two Sets of Laws, How it Applies to You, Citizen of the United States of America


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How do you enforce natural rights, without social justice?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have to have a crime in order to administer justice.  What you're saying is meaningless and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> In Nature, might makes right.  Social justice is for political animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> _*"Social justice* is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges_."
> 
> Social justice - Wikipedia
> 
> There are no _"terms_" for a Right.  Either you have the Right or you do not.  It's not a negotiation.  America was not founded on socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Privileges and immunities, is the legal term in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your theory is that the 14th Amendment nullified all of your *unalienable* Rights?
> 
> I take that issue on quite regularly:
> 
> The Two United States, Two Sets of Laws, How it Applies to You, Citizen of the United States of America
Click to expand...

You were the one quibbling.  Our Founding Fathers got it right, the first time.

We have laws, not natural rights in open court.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos, YOU are the only swinging dick around here claiming that Natural Rights have a damn thing to do with the Second Amendment.
> 
> Your Rights existed before the adoption of the Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not.  Natural rights have nothing to do with our Second Amendment; thus, well regulated militia have "precedence", when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you ARE a troll.  You keep manufacturing phony debates; you fail to answer simple questions that would lead to an end to this pissing match; you create strawmen; you avoid the facts; above all, you try to piss me off by pretending you're having a bromance with me.  If you love men, that's on you.  Leave me out of it.  I'm not your "_dear_."
> 
> You are the only person that is arguing over natural rights.  *THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEITHER CREATES NOR SECURES NATURAL RIGHTS.  IT MERELY GUARANTEES US OUR GOD GIVEN, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE, NATURAL, INHERENT RIGHT
> *
> There is no other argument to be made there. Regardless of whether or not the militia is well regulated, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms as an* individual *Right.  That's not my opinion, sir.  That is an irrefutable FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about this; what if, one Individual disagrees with another Individual, over the meaning of natural rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When there is a disagreement, the proper forum is the courts.  The courts then interpret the legal meaning of the words.  Why else do you think I have quoted the courts in their interpretation of the word "*absolute*" over and over and over again?
> 
> If you disagree with the courts, you state your objection and provide references that may make people think differently... just as I did with challenging the Supreme Court's power to legislate from the bench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Social justice or public justice, not private justice.
Click to expand...


The court system IS public justice.  No more phony arguments, please.  Get real.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have to have a crime in order to administer justice.  What you're saying is meaningless and irrelevant to the issue at hand.
> 
> 
> 
> In Nature, might makes right.  Social justice is for political animals.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> _*"Social justice* is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges_."
> 
> Social justice - Wikipedia
> 
> There are no _"terms_" for a Right.  Either you have the Right or you do not.  It's not a negotiation.  America was not founded on socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Privileges and immunities, is the legal term in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your theory is that the 14th Amendment nullified all of your *unalienable* Rights?
> 
> I take that issue on quite regularly:
> 
> The Two United States, Two Sets of Laws, How it Applies to You, Citizen of the United States of America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were the one quibbling.  Our Founding Fathers got it right, the first time.
> 
> We have laws, not natural rights in open court.
Click to expand...


Courts have no authority to challenge your natural, God given, inherent, absolute, *unalienable* Rights.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> No, I am not.  Natural rights have nothing to do with our Second Amendment; thus, well regulated militia have "precedence", when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you ARE a troll.  You keep manufacturing phony debates; you fail to answer simple questions that would lead to an end to this pissing match; you create strawmen; you avoid the facts; above all, you try to piss me off by pretending you're having a bromance with me.  If you love men, that's on you.  Leave me out of it.  I'm not your "_dear_."
> 
> You are the only person that is arguing over natural rights.  *THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEITHER CREATES NOR SECURES NATURAL RIGHTS.  IT MERELY GUARANTEES US OUR GOD GIVEN, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE, NATURAL, INHERENT RIGHT
> *
> There is no other argument to be made there. Regardless of whether or not the militia is well regulated, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms as an* individual *Right.  That's not my opinion, sir.  That is an irrefutable FACT.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How about this; what if, one Individual disagrees with another Individual, over the meaning of natural rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When there is a disagreement, the proper forum is the courts.  The courts then interpret the legal meaning of the words.  Why else do you think I have quoted the courts in their interpretation of the word "*absolute*" over and over and over again?
> 
> If you disagree with the courts, you state your objection and provide references that may make people think differently... just as I did with challenging the Supreme Court's power to legislate from the bench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Social justice or public justice, not private justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court system IS public justice.  No more phony arguments, please.  Get real.
Click to expand...

Simply using tax moneys, makes it social, not capital.

In any case, we have a Second Amendment, only the unorganized militia and gun lovers whine about not being able to keep and bear Arms in public venues, like well regulated militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> In Nature, might makes right.  Social justice is for political animals.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> _*"Social justice* is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges_."
> 
> Social justice - Wikipedia
> 
> There are no _"terms_" for a Right.  Either you have the Right or you do not.  It's not a negotiation.  America was not founded on socialism.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Privileges and immunities, is the legal term in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your theory is that the 14th Amendment nullified all of your *unalienable* Rights?
> 
> I take that issue on quite regularly:
> 
> The Two United States, Two Sets of Laws, How it Applies to You, Citizen of the United States of America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were the one quibbling.  Our Founding Fathers got it right, the first time.
> 
> We have laws, not natural rights in open court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Courts have no authority to challenge your natural, God given, inherent, absolute, *unalienable* Rights.
Click to expand...

You are simply special pleading.  They do it whenever a crime is alleged to have occurred and comes before the Court, so they can do their job.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Yes, you ARE a troll.  You keep manufacturing phony debates; you fail to answer simple questions that would lead to an end to this pissing match; you create strawmen; you avoid the facts; above all, you try to piss me off by pretending you're having a bromance with me.  If you love men, that's on you.  Leave me out of it.  I'm not your "_dear_."
> 
> You are the only person that is arguing over natural rights.  *THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA NEITHER CREATES NOR SECURES NATURAL RIGHTS.  IT MERELY GUARANTEES US OUR GOD GIVEN, UNALIENABLE, ABSOLUTE, NATURAL, INHERENT RIGHT
> *
> There is no other argument to be made there. Regardless of whether or not the militia is well regulated, you have a Right to keep and bear Arms as an* individual *Right.  That's not my opinion, sir.  That is an irrefutable FACT.
> 
> 
> 
> How about this; what if, one Individual disagrees with another Individual, over the meaning of natural rights?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> When there is a disagreement, the proper forum is the courts.  The courts then interpret the legal meaning of the words.  Why else do you think I have quoted the courts in their interpretation of the word "*absolute*" over and over and over again?
> 
> If you disagree with the courts, you state your objection and provide references that may make people think differently... just as I did with challenging the Supreme Court's power to legislate from the bench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Social justice or public justice, not private justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court system IS public justice.  No more phony arguments, please.  Get real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply using tax moneys, makes it social, not capital.
> 
> In any case, we have a Second Amendment, only the unorganized militia and gun lovers whine about not being able to keep and bear Arms in public venues, like well regulated militia.
Click to expand...


The more you post, the more silly your posts get.  A well regulated militia (the military in* your *interpretation  - whether it is state or federal) cannot bear arms in public venues.  A United States Marine, a National Guardsman and the guy from the state organized militia is prohibited, just like you from taking a militia arm into a courthouse, sporting event, the polls, etc.  

There is no special privilege for them.  The right is an *individual* Right, sir.  It is not a militia Right.  The Right belongs to the people, not the militia.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> According to Wikipedia:
> 
> _*"Social justice* is a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society. This is measured by the explicit and tacit terms for the distribution of wealth, opportunities for personal activity and social privileges_."
> 
> Social justice - Wikipedia
> 
> There are no _"terms_" for a Right.  Either you have the Right or you do not.  It's not a negotiation.  America was not founded on socialism.
> 
> 
> 
> Privileges and immunities, is the legal term in our federal Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So your theory is that the 14th Amendment nullified all of your *unalienable* Rights?
> 
> I take that issue on quite regularly:
> 
> The Two United States, Two Sets of Laws, How it Applies to You, Citizen of the United States of America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were the one quibbling.  Our Founding Fathers got it right, the first time.
> 
> We have laws, not natural rights in open court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Courts have no authority to challenge your natural, God given, inherent, absolute, *unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply special pleading.  They do it whenever a crime is alleged to have occurred and comes before the Court, so they can do their job.
Click to expand...



 This is not a pleading. You are not a king.  You're a poster on a discussion board.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How about this; what if, one Individual disagrees with another Individual, over the meaning of natural rights?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> When there is a disagreement, the proper forum is the courts.  The courts then interpret the legal meaning of the words.  Why else do you think I have quoted the courts in their interpretation of the word "*absolute*" over and over and over again?
> 
> If you disagree with the courts, you state your objection and provide references that may make people think differently... just as I did with challenging the Supreme Court's power to legislate from the bench.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Social justice or public justice, not private justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court system IS public justice.  No more phony arguments, please.  Get real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply using tax moneys, makes it social, not capital.
> 
> In any case, we have a Second Amendment, only the unorganized militia and gun lovers whine about not being able to keep and bear Arms in public venues, like well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more you post, the more silly your posts get.  A well regulated militia (the military in* your *interpretation  - whether it is state or federal) cannot bear arms in public venues.  A United States Marine, a National Guardsman and the guy from the state organized militia is prohibited, just like you from taking a militia arm into a courthouse, sporting event, the polls, etc.
> 
> There is no special privilege for them.  The right is an *individual* Right, sir.  It is not a militia Right.  The Right belongs to the people, not the militia.
Click to expand...

You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.

The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Privileges and immunities, is the legal term in our federal Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So your theory is that the 14th Amendment nullified all of your *unalienable* Rights?
> 
> I take that issue on quite regularly:
> 
> The Two United States, Two Sets of Laws, How it Applies to You, Citizen of the United States of America
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You were the one quibbling.  Our Founding Fathers got it right, the first time.
> 
> We have laws, not natural rights in open court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Courts have no authority to challenge your natural, God given, inherent, absolute, *unalienable* Rights.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are simply special pleading.  They do it whenever a crime is alleged to have occurred and comes before the Court, so they can do their job.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> This is not a pleading. You are not a king.  You're a poster on a discussion board.
Click to expand...

Nothing but red herrings; how typical of the right wing.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> When there is a disagreement, the proper forum is the courts.  The courts then interpret the legal meaning of the words.  Why else do you think I have quoted the courts in their interpretation of the word "*absolute*" over and over and over again?
> 
> If you disagree with the courts, you state your objection and provide references that may make people think differently... just as I did with challenging the Supreme Court's power to legislate from the bench.


Courts do not interpret the legal meaning of words. SMFH They answer the question posed based on the discussions and intended meaning of the Congressmen initiating the law and passing the law, as to whether it was a Constitutional Law or not, based on the right of the person or the people.

The only *absolute right* is the right to bear arms, to defend yourself or the state.

The right to keep arms is not absolute and was granted with stipulation, 1689 EBoR.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> When there is a disagreement, the proper forum is the courts.  The courts then interpret the legal meaning of the words.  Why else do you think I have quoted the courts in their interpretation of the word "*absolute*" over and over and over again?
> 
> If you disagree with the courts, you state your objection and provide references that may make people think differently... just as I did with challenging the Supreme Court's power to legislate from the bench.
> 
> 
> 
> Social justice or public justice, not private justice.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The court system IS public justice.  No more phony arguments, please.  Get real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply using tax moneys, makes it social, not capital.
> 
> In any case, we have a Second Amendment, only the unorganized militia and gun lovers whine about not being able to keep and bear Arms in public venues, like well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more you post, the more silly your posts get.  A well regulated militia (the military in* your *interpretation  - whether it is state or federal) cannot bear arms in public venues.  A United States Marine, a National Guardsman and the guy from the state organized militia is prohibited, just like you from taking a militia arm into a courthouse, sporting event, the polls, etc.
> 
> There is no special privilege for them.  The right is an *individual* Right, sir.  It is not a militia Right.  The Right belongs to the people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.
> 
> The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.
Click to expand...


A well regulated Internet being convenient to the entertainment of trolls, the right of socialists like danielpalos to post lies and idiocy shall not be infringed. 

I don't have to be in the militia in order to own a firearm. The militia needs NO Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. Regulation is *not* gun bans, registration nor the creation of specially privileged classes of people able to own weapons.

danielpalos, if you don't like people owning firearms, try to take them. Then get back to me. Otherwise all you're posting is mental masturbation. Even if you could outlaw weapons (and you can't), at least a million people know to build them and they will have them long after your bones are turning to dust.

Moronic posts making an idiotic and irrelevant accusation over and over are desperate attempts to hide the fact that danielpalos is clueless, causeless, uninformed, and not able to understand that he is making up shit to argue about that has nothing to do with what I said.

*NOBODY* is litigating natural rights except danielpalos and then, only in that expanse between his ears.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> So your theory is that the 14th Amendment nullified all of your *unalienable* Rights?
> 
> I take that issue on quite regularly:
> 
> The 14th Amendment Clarified, Citizenship, Constitution of the United States of America, Supreme Law
> 
> The Two United States, Two Sets of Laws, How it Applies to You, Citizen of the United States of America


Sovereign Citizen stupidity. LMFAO


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Social justice or public justice, not private justice.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The court system IS public justice.  No more phony arguments, please.  Get real.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Simply using tax moneys, makes it social, not capital.
> 
> In any case, we have a Second Amendment, only the unorganized militia and gun lovers whine about not being able to keep and bear Arms in public venues, like well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more you post, the more silly your posts get.  A well regulated militia (the military in* your *interpretation  - whether it is state or federal) cannot bear arms in public venues.  A United States Marine, a National Guardsman and the guy from the state organized militia is prohibited, just like you from taking a militia arm into a courthouse, sporting event, the polls, etc.
> 
> There is no special privilege for them.  The right is an *individual* Right, sir.  It is not a militia Right.  The Right belongs to the people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.
> 
> The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated Internet being convenient to the entertainment of trolls, the right of socialists like danielpalos to post lies and idiocy shall not be infringed.
> 
> I don't have to be in the militia in order to own a firearm. The militia needs NO Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. Regulation is *not* gun bans, registration nor the creation of specially privileged classes of people able to own weapons.
> 
> danielpalos, if you don't like people owning firearms, try to take them. Then get back to me. Otherwise all you're posting is mental masturbation. Even if you could outlaw weapons (and you can't), at least a million people know to build them and they will have them long after your bones are turning to dust.
> 
> Moronic posts making an idiotic and irrelevant accusation over and over are desperate attempts to hide the fact that danielpalos is clueless, causeless, uninformed, and not able to understand that he is making up shit to argue about that has nothing to do with what I said.
> 
> *NOBODY* is litigating natural rights except danielpalos and then, only in that expanse between his ears.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is very specific and not about natural rights, but what is necessary to the security of a free State of our Union and Republic.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The court system IS public justice.  No more phony arguments, please.  Get real.
> 
> 
> 
> Simply using tax moneys, makes it social, not capital.
> 
> In any case, we have a Second Amendment, only the unorganized militia and gun lovers whine about not being able to keep and bear Arms in public venues, like well regulated militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The more you post, the more silly your posts get.  A well regulated militia (the military in* your *interpretation  - whether it is state or federal) cannot bear arms in public venues.  A United States Marine, a National Guardsman and the guy from the state organized militia is prohibited, just like you from taking a militia arm into a courthouse, sporting event, the polls, etc.
> 
> There is no special privilege for them.  The right is an *individual* Right, sir.  It is not a militia Right.  The Right belongs to the people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.
> 
> The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated Internet being convenient to the entertainment of trolls, the right of socialists like danielpalos to post lies and idiocy shall not be infringed.
> 
> I don't have to be in the militia in order to own a firearm. The militia needs NO Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. Regulation is *not* gun bans, registration nor the creation of specially privileged classes of people able to own weapons.
> 
> danielpalos, if you don't like people owning firearms, try to take them. Then get back to me. Otherwise all you're posting is mental masturbation. Even if you could outlaw weapons (and you can't), at least a million people know to build them and they will have them long after your bones are turning to dust.
> 
> Moronic posts making an idiotic and irrelevant accusation over and over are desperate attempts to hide the fact that danielpalos is clueless, causeless, uninformed, and not able to understand that he is making up shit to argue about that has nothing to do with what I said.
> 
> *NOBODY* is litigating natural rights except danielpalos and then, only in that expanse between his ears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is very specific and not about natural rights, but what is necessary to the security of a free State of our Union and Republic.
Click to expand...


And still, the Second Amendment acknowledges (not grants nor secures) the* Right of the people*...


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Simply using tax moneys, makes it social, not capital.
> 
> In any case, we have a Second Amendment, only the unorganized militia and gun lovers whine about not being able to keep and bear Arms in public venues, like well regulated militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post, the more silly your posts get.  A well regulated militia (the military in* your *interpretation  - whether it is state or federal) cannot bear arms in public venues.  A United States Marine, a National Guardsman and the guy from the state organized militia is prohibited, just like you from taking a militia arm into a courthouse, sporting event, the polls, etc.
> 
> There is no special privilege for them.  The right is an *individual* Right, sir.  It is not a militia Right.  The Right belongs to the people, not the militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.
> 
> The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated Internet being convenient to the entertainment of trolls, the right of socialists like danielpalos to post lies and idiocy shall not be infringed.
> 
> I don't have to be in the militia in order to own a firearm. The militia needs NO Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. Regulation is *not* gun bans, registration nor the creation of specially privileged classes of people able to own weapons.
> 
> danielpalos, if you don't like people owning firearms, try to take them. Then get back to me. Otherwise all you're posting is mental masturbation. Even if you could outlaw weapons (and you can't), at least a million people know to build them and they will have them long after your bones are turning to dust.
> 
> Moronic posts making an idiotic and irrelevant accusation over and over are desperate attempts to hide the fact that danielpalos is clueless, causeless, uninformed, and not able to understand that he is making up shit to argue about that has nothing to do with what I said.
> 
> *NOBODY* is litigating natural rights except danielpalos and then, only in that expanse between his ears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is very specific and not about natural rights, but what is necessary to the security of a free State of our Union and Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And still, the Second Amendment acknowledges (not grants nor secures) the* Right of the people*...
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia, for Second Amendment purposes; you are either, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.

You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.

The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Liquid Reigns said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dude,"  At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda.  That is more than we can honestly say about you.
> 
> What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant.  You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question.  Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?
> 
> You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are.  Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia.  *You've never even been in a militia*.  I wrote the handbook for our state's militia.  That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.
> 
> So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey?  *EVERY* sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths.  And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.
> 
> LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells:  Your Rights are *NOT* "_secured_" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies.  Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:
> 
> _"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."
> 
> secure
> _
> All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights,  is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms.  When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (*first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress*)  before considering any extraordinary actions.
> 
> 
> 
> Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)
> 
> According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.
> 
> You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.
> 
> Talk about being a poser. LMFAO
Click to expand...

FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states

Private Militias


----------



## Humorme

Skull Pilot said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dude,"  At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda.  That is more than we can honestly say about you.
> 
> What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant.  You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question.  Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?
> 
> You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are.  Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia.  *You've never even been in a militia*.  I wrote the handbook for our state's militia.  That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.
> 
> So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey?  *EVERY* sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths.  And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.
> 
> LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells:  Your Rights are *NOT* "_secured_" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies.  Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:
> 
> _"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."
> 
> secure
> _
> All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights,  is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms.  When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (*first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress*)  before considering any extraordinary actions.
> 
> 
> 
> Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)
> 
> According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.
> 
> You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.
> 
> Talk about being a poser. LMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states
> 
> Private Militias
Click to expand...


I am *IN* a civilian militia. They are perfectly legal and recognized by the government.  They know the leadership in Georgia; they are well aware of where we meet (publicly) and, despite that, NONE of us in this organization has ever spent a night in jail or been found guilty of a crime due to anything related to the militia.  Having been around since 1987, anybody that claims they are illegal or terroristic, etc. is probably 13 or terribly stupid.

Addendum: Sorry, I noticed that you were responding to a troll on my ignore list.  That POS is supposed to be gone from here for publishing personal info about me, so don't take whatever he's saying seriously.  Most of it will be lies, errors and crap he posts in a vain effort to discredit me when he has zero credibility himself.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The more you post, the more silly your posts get.  A well regulated militia (the military in* your *interpretation  - whether it is state or federal) cannot bear arms in public venues.  A United States Marine, a National Guardsman and the guy from the state organized militia is prohibited, just like you from taking a militia arm into a courthouse, sporting event, the polls, etc.
> 
> There is no special privilege for them.  The right is an *individual* Right, sir.  It is not a militia Right.  The Right belongs to the people, not the militia.
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.
> 
> The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> A well regulated Internet being convenient to the entertainment of trolls, the right of socialists like danielpalos to post lies and idiocy shall not be infringed.
> 
> I don't have to be in the militia in order to own a firearm. The militia needs NO Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. Regulation is *not* gun bans, registration nor the creation of specially privileged classes of people able to own weapons.
> 
> danielpalos, if you don't like people owning firearms, try to take them. Then get back to me. Otherwise all you're posting is mental masturbation. Even if you could outlaw weapons (and you can't), at least a million people know to build them and they will have them long after your bones are turning to dust.
> 
> Moronic posts making an idiotic and irrelevant accusation over and over are desperate attempts to hide the fact that danielpalos is clueless, causeless, uninformed, and not able to understand that he is making up shit to argue about that has nothing to do with what I said.
> 
> *NOBODY* is litigating natural rights except danielpalos and then, only in that expanse between his ears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is very specific and not about natural rights, but what is necessary to the security of a free State of our Union and Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And still, the Second Amendment acknowledges (not grants nor secures) the* Right of the people*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia, for Second Amendment purposes; you are either, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.
> 
> The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.
Click to expand...


You are an absolute dumb ass.  It is impossible to confuse natural rights with the Second Amendment when my position is that they are two different things.  You making the same fake claim over and over won't make it come true.  It only exposes how completely stupid you really are.

The concept of natural, inherent, *unalienable*, God given, *absolute *Rights are not a part of this discussion except to the extent that the Right to keep and bear Arms is an *individual Right* of which YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS CONFUSED.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dude,"  At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda.  That is more than we can honestly say about you.
> 
> What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant.  You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question.  Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?
> 
> You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are.  Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia.  *You've never even been in a militia*.  I wrote the handbook for our state's militia.  That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.
> 
> So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey?  *EVERY* sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths.  And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.
> 
> LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells:  Your Rights are *NOT* "_secured_" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies.  Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:
> 
> _"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."
> 
> secure
> _
> All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights,  is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms.  When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (*first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress*)  before considering any extraordinary actions.
> 
> 
> 
> Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)
> 
> According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.
> 
> You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.
> 
> Talk about being a poser. LMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states
> 
> Private Militias
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I am *IN* a civilian militia. They are perfectly legal and recognized by the government.  They know the leadership in Georgia; they are well aware of where we meet (publicly) and, despite that, NONE of us in this organization has ever spent a night in jail or been found guilty of a crime due to anything related to the militia.  Having been around since 1987, anybody that claims they are illegal or terroristic, etc. is probably 13 or terribly stupid.
> 
> Addendum: Sorry, I noticed that you were responding to a troll on my ignore list.  That POS is supposed to be gone from here for publishing personal info about me, so don't take whatever he's saying seriously.  Most of it will be lies, errors and crap he posts in a vain effort to discredit me when he has zero credibility himself.
Click to expand...

You are only recognized by the govt as a domestic terrorist. The state and federal govt will not call upon you in time of need, as you are not recognized.  I suggest you read Skulls link. 





> *Private Militias*
> Private militias are armed military groups that are composed of private citizens and not recognized by federal or state governments.


and





> Approximately half the states maintain laws regulating private militias. Generally, these laws prohibit the parading and exercising of armed private militias in public, but do not forbid the formation of private militias. In Wyoming, however, state law forbids the very formation of private militias. Under section 19-1-106 of the Wyoming Statutes, "No body of men other than the regularly organized national guard or the troops of the United States shall associate themselves together as a military company or organization, or parade in public with arms without license of the governor." The Wyoming law also prohibits the public funding of private militias. Anyone convicted of violating the provisions of the law is subject to a fine of not more than $1,000, imprisonment of six months, or both, for each offense.
> 
> In states that do not outlaw them, private militias are limited only by the criminal laws applicable to all of society. Thus, if an armed private militia seeks to parade and exercise in a public area, its members will be subject to arrest on a variety of laws, including disturbing-the-peace, firearms, or even riot statutes.


Many states have laws that if more then 2 or 3 people are involved in military type training exorcises then they need to have certified instructors and have paid for the instructor on site. 

Just because you have a "club" you call a militia, doesn't make a you an actual militia or legal in any sense of the word.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Skull Pilot said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dude,"  At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda.  That is more than we can honestly say about you.
> 
> What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant.  You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question.  Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?
> 
> You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are.  Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia.  *You've never even been in a militia*.  I wrote the handbook for our state's militia.  That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.
> 
> So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey?  *EVERY* sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths.  And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.
> 
> LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells:  Your Rights are *NOT* "_secured_" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies.  Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:
> 
> _"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."
> 
> secure
> _
> All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights,  is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms.  When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (*first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress*)  before considering any extraordinary actions.
> 
> 
> 
> Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)
> 
> According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.
> 
> You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.
> 
> Talk about being a poser. LMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states
> 
> Private Militias
Click to expand...

Anybody can form a club/group and call it a militia, it doesn't make it an actual militia.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.
> 
> The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> A well regulated Internet being convenient to the entertainment of trolls, the right of socialists like danielpalos to post lies and idiocy shall not be infringed.
> 
> I don't have to be in the militia in order to own a firearm. The militia needs NO Amendment in order to have a Right to keep and bear Arms. Regulation is *not* gun bans, registration nor the creation of specially privileged classes of people able to own weapons.
> 
> danielpalos, if you don't like people owning firearms, try to take them. Then get back to me. Otherwise all you're posting is mental masturbation. Even if you could outlaw weapons (and you can't), at least a million people know to build them and they will have them long after your bones are turning to dust.
> 
> Moronic posts making an idiotic and irrelevant accusation over and over are desperate attempts to hide the fact that danielpalos is clueless, causeless, uninformed, and not able to understand that he is making up shit to argue about that has nothing to do with what I said.
> 
> *NOBODY* is litigating natural rights except danielpalos and then, only in that expanse between his ears.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is very specific and not about natural rights, but what is necessary to the security of a free State of our Union and Republic.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> And still, the Second Amendment acknowledges (not grants nor secures) the* Right of the people*...
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia, for Second Amendment purposes; you are either, well regulated and necessary to the security of a free State or you are not.
> 
> You are confusing natural rights with our Second Amendment; they may be incompatible.
> 
> The entire South was denied and disparaged in their former natural right to Arms, by well regulated militias of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are an absolute dumb ass.  It is impossible to confuse natural rights with the Second Amendment when my position is that they are two different things.  You making the same fake claim over and over won't make it come true.  It only exposes how completely stupid you really are.
> 
> The concept of natural, inherent, *unalienable*, God given, *absolute *Rights are not a part of this discussion except to the extent that the Right to keep and bear Arms is an *individual Right* of which YOU ARE THE ONE THAT IS CONFUSED.
Click to expand...

If no natural rights are involved in our Second Amendment, then why claim the unorganized militia may not be Infringed, when required by well regulated militia, for the security of a free State?


----------



## there4eyeM

Assault style firearms obviously appeal to the onerous, darker side of those who adhere to the second amendment so ferociously. They are certainly not necessary, while being outstanding as the 'weapon of choice' by domestic sickos. Many models of semi-automatic rifles in .556 caliber exist on the market, but if they have a wooden stock, they just don't look mean enough to satisfy the 'Rambo' in the "gut-gun kult".
The 'right' to possess and, in certain situations, carry firearms may be protected by the Constitution, but that by no means makes all and every aspect of firearms, ammunition, sales and taxation sacrosanct.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Liquid Reigns said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dude,"  At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda.  That is more than we can honestly say about you.
> 
> What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant.  You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question.  Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?
> 
> You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are.  Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia.  *You've never even been in a militia*.  I wrote the handbook for our state's militia.  That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.
> 
> So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey?  *EVERY* sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths.  And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.
> 
> LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells:  Your Rights are *NOT* "_secured_" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies.  Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:
> 
> _"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."
> 
> secure
> _
> All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights,  is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms.  When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (*first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress*)  before considering any extraordinary actions.
> 
> 
> 
> Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)
> 
> According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.
> 
> You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.
> 
> Talk about being a poser. LMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states
> 
> Private Militias
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anybody can form a club/group and call it a militia, it doesn't make it an actual militia.
Click to expand...


The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public.  It says nothing of training on private lands.

And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law


----------



## Skull Pilot

there4eyeM said:


> Assault style firearms obviously appeal to the onerous, darker side of those who adhere to the second amendment so ferociously. They are certainly not necessary, while being outstanding as the 'weapon of choice' by domestic sickos. Many models of semi-automatic rifles in .556 caliber exist on the market, but if they have a wooden stock, they just don't look mean enough to satisfy the 'Rambo' in the "gut-gun kult".
> The 'right' to possess and, in certain situations, carry firearms may be protected by the Constitution, but that by no means makes all and every aspect of firearms, ammunition, sales and taxation sacrosanct.



So tell me the reasoning behind banning an AR 15 and not a Ruger Mini 14.

You just said there is no difference between the two other than cosmetic

Than banning of an AR 15 and not any other semiautomatic rifle of the same caliber is like banning black corvettes but not any other color


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dude,"  At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda.  That is more than we can honestly say about you.
> 
> What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant.  You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question.  Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?
> 
> You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are.  Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia.  *You've never even been in a militia*.  I wrote the handbook for our state's militia.  That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.
> 
> So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey?  *EVERY* sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths.  And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.
> 
> LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells:  Your Rights are *NOT* "_secured_" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies.  Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:
> 
> _"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."
> 
> secure
> _
> All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights,  is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms.  When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (*first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress*)  before considering any extraordinary actions.
> 
> 
> 
> Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)
> 
> According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.
> 
> You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.
> 
> Talk about being a poser. LMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states
> 
> Private Militias
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anybody can form a club/group and call it a militia, it doesn't make it an actual militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public.  It says nothing of training on private lands.
> 
> And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners and guidons, by our Government.


----------



## danielpalos

Skull Pilot said:


> there4eyeM said:
> 
> 
> 
> Assault style firearms obviously appeal to the onerous, darker side of those who adhere to the second amendment so ferociously. They are certainly not necessary, while being outstanding as the 'weapon of choice' by domestic sickos. Many models of semi-automatic rifles in .556 caliber exist on the market, but if they have a wooden stock, they just don't look mean enough to satisfy the 'Rambo' in the "gut-gun kult".
> The 'right' to possess and, in certain situations, carry firearms may be protected by the Constitution, but that by no means makes all and every aspect of firearms, ammunition, sales and taxation sacrosanct.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> So tell me the reasoning behind banning an AR 15 and not a Ruger Mini 14.
> 
> You just said there is no difference between the two other than cosmetic
> 
> Than banning of an AR 15 and not any other semiautomatic rifle of the same caliber is like banning black corvettes but not any other color
Click to expand...

What is more necessary for the common defense?


----------



## danielpalos

Should everyone be entitled to a musket with a bayonet, and instructed to take care of their weapon?


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dude,"  At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda.  That is more than we can honestly say about you.
> 
> What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant.  You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question.  Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?
> 
> You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are.  Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia.  *You've never even been in a militia*.  I wrote the handbook for our state's militia.  That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.
> 
> So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey?  *EVERY* sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths.  And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.
> 
> LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells:  Your Rights are *NOT* "_secured_" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies.  Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:
> 
> _"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."
> 
> secure
> _
> All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights,  is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms.  When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (*first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress*)  before considering any extraordinary actions.
> 
> 
> 
> Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)
> 
> According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.
> 
> You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.
> 
> Talk about being a poser. LMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states
> 
> Private Militias
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anybody can form a club/group and call it a militia, it doesn't make it an actual militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public.  It says nothing of training on private lands.
> 
> And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners and guidons, by our Government.
Click to expand...


The Right to keep and bear Arms is an *individual Right* and one need not be in the militia in order to have a firearm.

According to the *United States Supreme Court*:

"_The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_,"

_*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

That is the *HOLDING* of the Court... the bottom line from the final arbiters of what the law means.  So, you can believe danielpalos or the United States Supreme Court.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Should everyone be entitled to a musket with a bayonet, and instructed to take care of their weapon?



The modern equivalent would be an AR type of rifle, and it would be a great idea if everybody owned one and the public schools taught marksmanship and safety.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)
> 
> According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.
> 
> You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.
> 
> Talk about being a poser. LMFAO
> 
> 
> 
> FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states
> 
> Private Militias
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anybody can form a club/group and call it a militia, it doesn't make it an actual militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public.  It says nothing of training on private lands.
> 
> And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners and guidons, by our Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is an *individual Right* and one need not be in the militia in order to have a firearm.
> 
> According to the *United States Supreme Court*:
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_,"
> 
> _*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> That is the *HOLDING* of the Court... the bottom line from the final arbiters of what the law means.  So, you can believe danielpalos or the United States Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

It is a simple appeal to ignorance of the law.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.

The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are unorganized (by our Republican form of Government).


----------



## Humorme

Skull Pilot said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> "Dude,"  At least you acknowledge that I'm not promoting propaganda.  That is more than we can honestly say about you.
> 
> What you're saying is a lot of half assed half truths... it is inaccurate and irrelevant.  You keep pretending like you've got a monopoly on all human understanding, but you can't articulate what it is you mean when asked a direct question.  Did it ever dawn on you that you might be a fucking idiot?
> 
> You and I are the only two left on this thread, but I'm committed to show you that you are not the beaming paragon of human virtue you think you are.  Just as you were wrong about where you placed me on the political sphere, you're wrong about the militia.  *You've never even been in a militia*.  I wrote the handbook for our state's militia.  That included the history, legalities and realities of it... and it remains the oldest and most continuous militia in the United States.
> 
> So, since you've been outed as a poseur, what do you think you're trying to convey?  *EVERY* sentence you've written in the last NINE entries is irrelevant, immaterial, and filled with half truths.  And your dumb ass hasn't been able to cobble together a response to the questions asked of you.
> 
> LIE # 1 that danielpalos tells:  Your Rights are *NOT* "_secured_" in state constitutions in the way danielpalos implies.  Since he is incessantly arguing over it, he must be trying to disagree with me (maybe he isn't), but the term secured as interpreted relative to state constitutions is simply this:
> 
> _"To assure the payment of a debt or the performance of an obligation; to provide security."
> 
> secure
> _
> All state constitutions can do, relative to the Bill of Rights,  is to provide the individual with the security that such rights will not be infringed. The state does not grant the Right to keep and bear Arms.  When government acts outside the bounds of the Constitution, it is the Right Duty and Obligation of the citizen to resist (*first exhausting all non-violent and legal avenues of redress*)  before considering any extraordinary actions.
> 
> 
> 
> Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)
> 
> According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.
> 
> You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.
> 
> Talk about being a poser. LMFAO
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states
> 
> Private Militias
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anybody can form a club/group and call it a militia, it doesn't make it an actual militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public.  It says nothing of training on private lands.
> 
> And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law
Click to expand...


Actually most anti-militia statutes are aimed at "_paramilitary activity_."  The existence of the civilian militia poses no problem for the law enforcement community.  Wear your camo, parade in public, etc., without carrying a firearm, you're good to go.  

When you train with firearms, do so as a civilian in events like Appleseed Shoots and everybody is happy.


----------



## danielpalos

Musket practice, every Sunday!


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states
> 
> Private Militias
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody can form a club/group and call it a militia, it doesn't make it an actual militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public.  It says nothing of training on private lands.
> 
> And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners and guidons, by our Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is an *individual Right* and one need not be in the militia in order to have a firearm.
> 
> According to the *United States Supreme Court*:
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_,"
> 
> _*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> That is the *HOLDING* of the Court... the bottom line from the final arbiters of what the law means.  So, you can believe danielpalos or the United States Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a simple appeal to ignorance of the law.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are unorganized.
Click to expand...


There you go again spouting stupidity.  What in the Hell is an "_appeal to ignorance of the law_?"  How many years have you been spewing that line?  If you're ignorant, I'm NOT appealing to you.  I can't fix your stupidity.  You'll have to see Dr. Phil about that.  Or are you trying to piss me off again so your buddies will delete my post because it is factual?

"_The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_,"

_*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anybody can form a club/group and call it a militia, it doesn't make it an actual militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public.  It says nothing of training on private lands.
> 
> And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners and guidons, by our Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is an *individual Right* and one need not be in the militia in order to have a firearm.
> 
> According to the *United States Supreme Court*:
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_,"
> 
> _*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> That is the *HOLDING* of the Court... the bottom line from the final arbiters of what the law means.  So, you can believe danielpalos or the United States Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a simple appeal to ignorance of the law.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again spouting stupidity.  What in the Hell is an "_appeal to ignorance of the law_?"  How many years have you been spewing that line?  If you're ignorant, I'm NOT appealing to you.  I can't fix your stupidity.  You'll have to see Dr. Phil about that.  Or are you trying to piss me off again so your buddies will delete my post because it is factual?
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_,"
> 
> _*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
Click to expand...

A simple appeal to ignorance (of the law).

Only in right wing cognitive disconnect can anyone be unconnected with the militia, only with militia service, well regulated.


----------



## Humorme

there4eyeM said:


> Assault style firearms obviously appeal to the onerous, darker side of those who adhere to the second amendment so ferociously. They are certainly not necessary, while being outstanding as the 'weapon of choice' by domestic sickos. Many models of semi-automatic rifles in .556 caliber exist on the market, but if they have a wooden stock, they just don't look mean enough to satisfy the 'Rambo' in the "gut-gun kult".
> The 'right' to possess and, in certain situations, carry firearms may be protected by the Constitution, but that by no means makes all and every aspect of firearms, ammunition, sales and taxation sacrosanct.



I really like you making value judgments of people you've never met.

The M1 Rifle was, according to General George Patton, the greatest battle instrument ever devised.  Those weapons, like the .30 carbine, bolt actions, and the .45 acp pistol are sold by the government to the public. 

Many people own that genre of rifle and some like the M1a which is the modern civilian version of the M14.  Those of us who like that genre of weapons are more pro-gun than even the guys who are only into the AR family of weapons.  But, to accuse me of being on the darker side of anything says that you are uneducated, ignorant, and prejudicial to the point that you cannot say anything that would benefit this thread. 

Stereotyping cannot change the fact that most of the gun laws you support are designed as infringements to the Right, and consequently, unconstitutional.  The M1a is the last wood and steel rifle that the militia uses.  The M1a is superior to the AR in a number of ways,


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public.  It says nothing of training on private lands.
> 
> And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners and guidons, by our Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is an *individual Right* and one need not be in the militia in order to have a firearm.
> 
> According to the *United States Supreme Court*:
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_,"
> 
> _*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> That is the *HOLDING* of the Court... the bottom line from the final arbiters of what the law means.  So, you can believe danielpalos or the United States Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a simple appeal to ignorance of the law.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again spouting stupidity.  What in the Hell is an "_appeal to ignorance of the law_?"  How many years have you been spewing that line?  If you're ignorant, I'm NOT appealing to you.  I can't fix your stupidity.  You'll have to see Dr. Phil about that.  Or are you trying to piss me off again so your buddies will delete my post because it is factual?
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_,"
> 
> _*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A simple appeal to ignorance (of the law).
> 
> Only in right wing cognitive disconnect can anyone be unconnected with the militia, only with militia service, well regulated.
Click to expand...


You're a dumbass.  I'm not appealing to the law.  The law is the law.  I'm appealing to the posters.  You're arguing with the *United States Supreme Court*. Did it ever dawn on you that you might be freaking delusional?  You would be well advised to give it some thought.

There are a lot of people who own firearms and are not active in the militia.  The weapons and the* Rights of the people* are protected from infringements.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners and guidons, by our Government.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is an *individual Right* and one need not be in the militia in order to have a firearm.
> 
> According to the *United States Supreme Court*:
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_,"
> 
> _*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> That is the *HOLDING* of the Court... the bottom line from the final arbiters of what the law means.  So, you can believe danielpalos or the United States Supreme Court.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It is a simple appeal to ignorance of the law.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again spouting stupidity.  What in the Hell is an "_appeal to ignorance of the law_?"  How many years have you been spewing that line?  If you're ignorant, I'm NOT appealing to you.  I can't fix your stupidity.  You'll have to see Dr. Phil about that.  Or are you trying to piss me off again so your buddies will delete my post because it is factual?
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_,"
> 
> _*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A simple appeal to ignorance (of the law).
> 
> Only in right wing cognitive disconnect can anyone be unconnected with the militia, only with militia service, well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a dumbass.  I'm not appealing to the law.  The law is the law.  I'm appealing to the posters.  You're arguing with the *United States Supreme Court*. Did it ever dawn on you that you might be freaking delusional?  You would be well advised to give it some thought.
> 
> There are a lot of people who own firearms and are not active in the militia.  The weapons and the* Rights of the people* are protected from infringements.
Click to expand...

Not even the Judicature is immune, as a privilege, from political influence.

Nothing but repeal instead of a valid argument, means I win, by default.

This was established as federal doctrine, with the ratification of our federal Constitution:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on 
Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Skull Pilot said:


> The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public.  It says nothing of training on private lands.
> 
> And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law


I quoted your link. :SHRUG:

Private militias are not recognized by the govt, state or federal. 
By having a group and calling it/claiming it to be a militia, whether on private/public land, doesn't matter.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Liquid Reigns said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public.  It says nothing of training on private lands.
> 
> And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted your link. :SHRUG:
> 
> Private militias are not recognized by the govt, state or federal.
> By having a group and calling it/claiming it to be a militia, whether on private/public land, doesn't matter.
Click to expand...


So what if they are not recognized?  They don't need to be recognized.

They are not illegal in every state as you claim are they?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> Private militias are not state militias (Air and Army National Guard). SMFH (Private militias are outlawed in all states.)
> 
> According to your back and forth, every able body man is in the unorganized militia.
> 
> You yourself have never served in the States Militia, let alone the military.
> 
> Talk about being a poser. LMFAO
> 
> 
> 
> FYI Private militias are not illegal in all states
> 
> Private Militias
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Anybody can form a club/group and call it a militia, it doesn't make it an actual militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public.  It says nothing of training on private lands.
> 
> And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia are authorized their own colors, standards, banners and guidons, by our Government.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is an *individual Right* and one need not be in the militia in order to have a firearm.
> 
> According to the *United States Supreme Court*:
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_,"
> 
> _*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> That is the *HOLDING* of the Court... the bottom line from the final arbiters of what the law means.  So, you can believe danielpalos or the United States Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

So you do use Heller and the Supreme Court when they fit your narrative, yet condemn them when they don't, how idiotic of you. SMFH


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Skull Pilot said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public.  It says nothing of training on private lands.
> 
> And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted your link. :SHRUG:
> 
> Private militias are not recognized by the govt, state or federal.
> By having a group and calling it/claiming it to be a militia, whether on private/public land, doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what if they are not recognized?  They don't need to be recognized.
> 
> They are not illegal in every state as you claim are they?
Click to expand...

Calling your group/club meetings a militia is hilarious, when all they are is a group of wanna-bes, doesn't make them a militia, or a Constitutional Militia as Humorme likes to call his defunct group, the Militia of Georgia. :SHRUG:


----------



## danielpalos

Liquid Reigns said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public.  It says nothing of training on private lands.
> 
> And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted your link. :SHRUG:
> 
> Private militias are not recognized by the govt, state or federal.
> By having a group and calling it/claiming it to be a militia, whether on private/public land, doesn't matter.
Click to expand...

Militia may be "over reaching" by gun lovers.  Regulators is more like it.



> _*Posse comitatus*_ is the common-law or statute law authority of a county sheriff, or other law officer, to conscript any able-bodied man to assist him in keeping the peace or to pursue and arrest a felon, similar to the concept of the "hue and cry." Originally found in English common law,[2] it is generally obsolete; however, it survives in the United States, where it is the law enforcement equivalent of summoning the militia for military purposes.--https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Posse_comitatus


----------



## danielpalos

A posse register for gun lovers who love to love their guns in public.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Right to keep and bear Arms is an *individual Right* and one need not be in the militia in order to have a firearm.
> 
> According to the *United States Supreme Court*:
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_,"
> 
> _*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> That is the *HOLDING* of the Court... the bottom line from the final arbiters of what the law means.  So, you can believe danielpalos or the United States Supreme Court.
> 
> 
> 
> It is a simple appeal to ignorance of the law.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are unorganized.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> There you go again spouting stupidity.  What in the Hell is an "_appeal to ignorance of the law_?"  How many years have you been spewing that line?  If you're ignorant, I'm NOT appealing to you.  I can't fix your stupidity.  You'll have to see Dr. Phil about that.  Or are you trying to piss me off again so your buddies will delete my post because it is factual?
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_,"
> 
> _*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A simple appeal to ignorance (of the law).
> 
> Only in right wing cognitive disconnect can anyone be unconnected with the militia, only with militia service, well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a dumbass.  I'm not appealing to the law.  The law is the law.  I'm appealing to the posters.  You're arguing with the *United States Supreme Court*. Did it ever dawn on you that you might be freaking delusional?  You would be well advised to give it some thought.
> 
> There are a lot of people who own firearms and are not active in the militia.  The weapons and the* Rights of the people* are protected from infringements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even the Judicature is immune, as a privilege, from political influence.
> 
> Nothing but repeal instead of a valid argument, means I win, by default.
> 
> This was established as federal doctrine, with the ratification of our federal Constitution:
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on _
> _Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...


If you aren't the most delusional person on this board, there isn't a cow in the whole state of Texas.

Your repetition of nonsense doesn't mean squat, danielpalos.  You've been repeating bullshit this many years because you thought the repetition means you win?  Really?  You've only to proven to be the most delusional poster on USM.

Look dude,, the words unorganized and *disorganized* are different in the English language.

The word *unorganized* is "_not brought into a coherent or well-ordered whole_"

The word *disorganized* is lacking coherence, system, or central guiding agency :not organized  (Disorganized is the antonym for regulated; unorganized is NOT)

I found great synonyms for "regulate" on the new Thesaurus.com!

What you're selling is snake oil.  You've been lying.  The unorganized militia simply means we haven't been brought into the regular militia.  A disorganized militia would be a group with no central guiding agency.  Even the unorganized militia, when called into service, knows full well who the guiding agency is.

It's just that we don't have to be a part of the organized militia in order to own private firearms... and even if we are not in the militia, we still have a Right to keep and bear Arms.  The Second Amendment is not about the military.  It is about the Right of the people.


----------



## Humorme

Skull Pilot said:


> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public.  It says nothing of training on private lands.
> 
> And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted your link. :SHRUG:
> 
> Private militias are not recognized by the govt, state or federal.
> By having a group and calling it/claiming it to be a militia, whether on private/public land, doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what if they are not recognized?  They don't need to be recognized.
> 
> They are not illegal in every state as you claim are they?
Click to expand...


I have been in a citizen militia since 1987.  You cannot get any more public than the militia I belong to.  Their leadership has been on the front pages of newspapers; on television; on radio.  

We once had a meeting in a large restaurant.  Neither of us knew but, both had an event on the same day!  Half of the banquet hall was a police award ceremony and on the other side of the partition, a militia meeting was going on.  *Anyone* that tells you civilian militias are not recognized is a liar.

If the militia were some kind of illegal organization, the cops would round up the leaders, seize any membership lists and kill / imprison the members.  Recognition does not mean they give you some kind of certificate, certifying you're the last line of defense.

Recognition lies in the fact that the United States government sells to the citizens working M1 rifles, .30 carbines, bolt action rifles and .45 acp pistols.  That is all the _recognition_ you need.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> A posse register for gun lovers who love to love their guns in public.



WTF does that mean danielpalos?  You couldn't dazzle with me brilliance so you changed tactics and are trying to baffle me with bullshit?

Son, give it up.  How many times did you see me with a gun in public?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public.  It says nothing of training on private lands.
> 
> And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted your link. :SHRUG:
> 
> Private militias are not recognized by the govt, state or federal.
> By having a group and calling it/claiming it to be a militia, whether on private/public land, doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what if they are not recognized?  They don't need to be recognized.
> 
> They are not illegal in every state as you claim are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have been in a citizen militia since 1987.  You cannot get any more public than the militia I belong to.  Their leadership has been on the front pages of newspapers; on television; on radio.
> 
> We once had a meeting in a large restaurant.  Neither of us knew but, both had an event on the same day!  Half of the banquet hall was a police award ceremony and on the other side of the partition, a militia meeting was going on.  *Anyone* that tells you civilian militias are not recognized is a liar.
> 
> If the militia were some kind of illegal organization, the cops would round up the leaders, seize any membership lists and kill / imprison the members.  Recognition does not mean they give you some kind of certificate, certifying you're the last line of defense.
> 
> Recognition lies in the fact that the United States government sells to the citizens working M1 rifles, .30 carbines, bolt action rifles and .45 acp pistols.  That is all the _recognition_ you need.
Click to expand...

Calling your group of wanna-bes a militia doesn't make you recognized in any way by law enforcement or the govt. Calling your group a "militia" doesn't make you a militia, nor does it make you a Constitutional Militia like you claim your group to be.


----------



## Humorme

Each of you have a Right to keep and bear Arms as an *individual*.  The United States Supreme Court has ruled:

 "_The Second Amendment *protects an individual right *to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home_."

_*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

The Second Amendment is not about protecting the militia; it is about protecting the *Right of the people* and you have the United States Supreme Court's bottom line holding on that issue.

You do not have to be in the militia in order to keep and bear Arms.

According to Wikipedia:

"_In People v. Aguilar (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in McDonald:

Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in *Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense*” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that *“individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right*” (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036)_"

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia

So, in other words, the current law is that the Second Amendment protects an *individual Right *to keep and bear Arms and that,* not* this idiotic and irrelevant argument about it being about protecting a militia right.  

From here on out, nobody should be confused as to what the courts have ruled:  individual self defense is the *central component *of the Second Amendment.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Liquid Reigns said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Liquid Reigns said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> The laws you quote only say only pertain to private militia carrying weapons and training in public.  It says nothing of training on private lands.
> 
> And if it was, as you say, illegal in all states to be in a private militia then no one could call any old club a militia without breaking the law
> 
> 
> 
> I quoted your link. :SHRUG:
> 
> Private militias are not recognized by the govt, state or federal.
> By having a group and calling it/claiming it to be a militia, whether on private/public land, doesn't matter.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So what if they are not recognized?  They don't need to be recognized.
> 
> They are not illegal in every state as you claim are they?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Calling your group/club meetings a militia is hilarious, when all they are is a group of wanna-bes, doesn't make them a militia, or a Constitutional Militia as Humorme likes to call his defunct group, the Militia of Georgia. :SHRUG:
Click to expand...


Think whatever you want but you are completely wrong abut private militias being illegal in all states as you claim.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Skull Pilot said:


> Think whatever you want but you are completely wrong abut private militias being illegal in all states as you claim.


Just because you call your little club or group a militia, it does not make you a militia. Putting the word militia in your clubs name doesn't mean you are in fact a militia.


----------



## Skull Pilot

Liquid Reigns said:


> Skull Pilot said:
> 
> 
> 
> Think whatever you want but you are completely wrong abut private militias being illegal in all states as you claim.
> 
> 
> 
> Just because you call your little club or group a militia, it does not make you a militia. Putting the word militia in your clubs name doesn't mean you are in fact a militia.
Click to expand...

FYI I am not in a militia.

But private militias are not illegal in all states as you claim they are just admit you are wrong and move on


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> It is a simple appeal to ignorance of the law.  There is no appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either, well regulated or you are unorganized.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again spouting stupidity.  What in the Hell is an "_appeal to ignorance of the law_?"  How many years have you been spewing that line?  If you're ignorant, I'm NOT appealing to you.  I can't fix your stupidity.  You'll have to see Dr. Phil about that.  Or are you trying to piss me off again so your buddies will delete my post because it is factual?
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_,"
> 
> _*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A simple appeal to ignorance (of the law).
> 
> Only in right wing cognitive disconnect can anyone be unconnected with the militia, only with militia service, well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a dumbass.  I'm not appealing to the law.  The law is the law.  I'm appealing to the posters.  You're arguing with the *United States Supreme Court*. Did it ever dawn on you that you might be freaking delusional?  You would be well advised to give it some thought.
> 
> There are a lot of people who own firearms and are not active in the militia.  The weapons and the* Rights of the people* are protected from infringements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even the Judicature is immune, as a privilege, from political influence.
> 
> Nothing but repeal instead of a valid argument, means I win, by default.
> 
> This was established as federal doctrine, with the ratification of our federal Constitution:
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on _
> _Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you aren't the most delusional person on this board, there isn't a cow in the whole state of Texas.
> 
> Your repetition of nonsense doesn't mean squat, danielpalos.  You've been repeating bullshit this many years because you thought the repetition means you win?  Really?  You've only to proven to be the most delusional poster on USM.
> 
> Look dude,, the words unorganized and *disorganized* are different in the English language.
> 
> The word *unorganized* is "_not brought into a coherent or well-ordered whole_"
> 
> The word *disorganized* is lacking coherence, system, or central guiding agency :not organized  (Disorganized is the antonym for regulated; unorganized is NOT)
> 
> I found great synonyms for "regulate" on the new Thesaurus.com!
> 
> What you're selling is snake oil.  You've been lying.  The unorganized militia simply means we haven't been brought into the regular militia.  A disorganized militia would be a group with no central guiding agency.  Even the unorganized militia, when called into service, knows full well who the guiding agency is.
> 
> It's just that we don't have to be a part of the organized militia in order to own private firearms... and even if we are not in the militia, we still have a Right to keep and bear Arms.  The Second Amendment is not about the military.  It is about the Right of the people.
Click to expand...

dude, you don't know what you are talking about.

A simple appeal to ignorance (of the law).

Only in right wing cognitive disconnect can anyone be unconnected with the militia, only with militia service, well regulated.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A posse register for gun lovers who love to love their guns in public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF does that mean danielpalos?  You couldn't dazzle with me brilliance so you changed tactics and are trying to baffle me with bullshit?
> 
> Son, give it up.  How many times did you see me with a gun in public?
Click to expand...

A posse register for gun lovers who love to love their guns in public.

What part are you not bright enough to understand?


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> There you go again spouting stupidity.  What in the Hell is an "_appeal to ignorance of the law_?"  How many years have you been spewing that line?  If you're ignorant, I'm NOT appealing to you.  I can't fix your stupidity.  You'll have to see Dr. Phil about that.  Or are you trying to piss me off again so your buddies will delete my post because it is factual?
> 
> "_The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia_,"
> 
> _*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> 
> 
> A simple appeal to ignorance (of the law).
> 
> Only in right wing cognitive disconnect can anyone be unconnected with the militia, only with militia service, well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're a dumbass.  I'm not appealing to the law.  The law is the law.  I'm appealing to the posters.  You're arguing with the *United States Supreme Court*. Did it ever dawn on you that you might be freaking delusional?  You would be well advised to give it some thought.
> 
> There are a lot of people who own firearms and are not active in the militia.  The weapons and the* Rights of the people* are protected from infringements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even the Judicature is immune, as a privilege, from political influence.
> 
> Nothing but repeal instead of a valid argument, means I win, by default.
> 
> This was established as federal doctrine, with the ratification of our federal Constitution:
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on _
> _Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you aren't the most delusional person on this board, there isn't a cow in the whole state of Texas.
> 
> Your repetition of nonsense doesn't mean squat, danielpalos.  You've been repeating bullshit this many years because you thought the repetition means you win?  Really?  You've only to proven to be the most delusional poster on USM.
> 
> Look dude,, the words unorganized and *disorganized* are different in the English language.
> 
> The word *unorganized* is "_not brought into a coherent or well-ordered whole_"
> 
> The word *disorganized* is lacking coherence, system, or central guiding agency :not organized  (Disorganized is the antonym for regulated; unorganized is NOT)
> 
> I found great synonyms for "regulate" on the new Thesaurus.com!
> 
> What you're selling is snake oil.  You've been lying.  The unorganized militia simply means we haven't been brought into the regular militia.  A disorganized militia would be a group with no central guiding agency.  Even the unorganized militia, when called into service, knows full well who the guiding agency is.
> 
> It's just that we don't have to be a part of the organized militia in order to own private firearms... and even if we are not in the militia, we still have a Right to keep and bear Arms.  The Second Amendment is not about the military.  It is about the Right of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> A simple appeal to ignorance (of the law).
> 
> Only in right wing cognitive disconnect can anyone be unconnected with the militia, only with militia service, well regulated.
Click to expand...


danielpalos,  Somehow even my direct quotes have been attacked and contain strikethroughs.  

You're in no position to be claiming I'm wrong when *everything* you've posted on this thread has been* refuted and proven wrong* by standing court precedents to be inaccurate..That is everything that can be understood in English.  The rest of your tripe is pretentious cant and uteer nonsense.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A posse register for gun lovers who love to love their guns in public.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> WTF does that mean danielpalos?  You couldn't dazzle with me brilliance so you changed tactics and are trying to baffle me with bullshit?
> 
> Son, give it up.  How many times did you see me with a gun in public?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> A posse register for gun lovers who love to love their guns in public.
> 
> What part are you not bright enough to understand?
Click to expand...



If you could string a few words together to make sense, I might understand it.  What in the Hell is a posse register?  And again, how many times have you seen me in public with a firearm?  How many sir?  You tell more lies than a New York politician... bet you're a Democrat.

You can't define your own bullshit terminology and think people are stupid for not being able to define crap you make up???  You got to be kidding.


----------



## Humorme

Between someone editing my posts and others being deleted, I have to keep repeating this stuff.  The strikeouts by persons unknown was not something I'd attribute to a moderator, but who knows???

We have to give danielpalos some kind of advantage.  He thinks he's _winning_ something.

According to the Heller decision:
The Supreme Court* held*:
"_(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53_."

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
"_In People v. Aguilar (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in McDonald:

Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that *“individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right”* (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “*elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day”* (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036)_"

McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia


----------



## Humorme

Humorme said:


> Between someone editing my posts and others being deleted, I have to keep repeating this stuff.  The strikeouts by persons unknown was not something I'd attribute to a moderator, but who knows???
> 
> We have to give danielpalos some kind of advantage.  He thinks he's _winning_ something.
> 
> According to the Heller decision:
> The Supreme Court* held*:
> "_(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53_."
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
> "_In People v. Aguilar (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in McDonald:
> 
> Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that *“individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right”* (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “*elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day”* (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036)_"
> 
> McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia



*Tench Coxe:* “_As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” in “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution_,” under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.


----------



## Humorme

Humorme said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Between someone editing my posts and others being deleted, I have to keep repeating this stuff.  The strikeouts by persons unknown was not something I'd attribute to a moderator, but who knows???
> 
> We have to give danielpalos some kind of advantage.  He thinks he's _winning_ something.
> 
> According to the Heller decision:
> The Supreme Court* held*:
> "_(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53_."
> 
> District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
> "_In People v. Aguilar (2013), the Illinois Supreme Court summed up the central Second Amendment findings in McDonald:
> 
> Two years later, in McDonald v. City of Chicago, 561 U.S. ___, ___, 130 S. Ct. 3020, 3050 (2010), the Supreme Court held that the second amendment right recognized in Heller is fully applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment. In so holding, the Court reiterated that “the Second Amendment protects the right to keep and bear arms for the purpose of self-defense” (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3026); that *“individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right”* (emphasis in original) (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036 (quoting Heller, 554 U.S. at 599)); and that “*elf-defense is a basic right, recognized by many legal systems from ancient times to the present day”* (id. at ___, 130 S. Ct. at 3036)_"
> 
> McDonald v. City of Chicago - Wikipedia
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *Tench Coxe:* “_As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” in “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution_,” under the pseudonym “A Pennsylvanian” in the Philadelphia Federal Gazette, June 18, 1789.
Click to expand...


So, somebody is going to strike out part of each of my posts now.  Okay.  Got it.

*Patrick Henry:* “_The people have a right to keep and bear arms_.” (Elliott, Debates at 185)  

*Alexander Hamilton:* “…that standing army can never be formidable (threatening) to the liberties of the people, while there is a large body of citizens, little if at all inferior to them in the use of arms.” (Federalist Paper #29)


----------



## sealybobo

Skull Pilot said:


> Meathead said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's not going to happen anyway. I think certain sensible restrictions should be enacted, but the 2nd Amendment is safe.
> 
> 
> 
> we already have plenty of sensible restrictions and quite a few that aren't so sensible
Click to expand...

Such as?


----------



## Humorme

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Taz said:
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, the US has lost its way as a civilized society.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe you should leave.  It's safer in France, I hear.
Click to expand...


Wrong.  France's mortality rate is worse than the U.S.

Death rate, crude (per 1,000 people) | Data


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> A simple appeal to ignorance (of the law).
> 
> Only in right wing cognitive disconnect can anyone be unconnected with the militia, only with militia service, well regulated.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're a dumbass.  I'm not appealing to the law.  The law is the law.  I'm appealing to the posters.  You're arguing with the *United States Supreme Court*. Did it ever dawn on you that you might be freaking delusional?  You would be well advised to give it some thought.
> 
> There are a lot of people who own firearms and are not active in the militia.  The weapons and the* Rights of the people* are protected from infringements.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Not even the Judicature is immune, as a privilege, from political influence.
> 
> Nothing but repeal instead of a valid argument, means I win, by default.
> 
> This was established as federal doctrine, with the ratification of our federal Constitution:
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on _
> _Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you aren't the most delusional person on this board, there isn't a cow in the whole state of Texas.
> 
> Your repetition of nonsense doesn't mean squat, danielpalos.  You've been repeating bullshit this many years because you thought the repetition means you win?  Really?  You've only to proven to be the most delusional poster on USM.
> 
> Look dude,, the words unorganized and *disorganized* are different in the English language.
> 
> The word *unorganized* is "_not brought into a coherent or well-ordered whole_"
> 
> The word *disorganized* is lacking coherence, system, or central guiding agency :not organized  (Disorganized is the antonym for regulated; unorganized is NOT)
> 
> I found great synonyms for "regulate" on the new Thesaurus.com!
> 
> What you're selling is snake oil.  You've been lying.  The unorganized militia simply means we haven't been brought into the regular militia.  A disorganized militia would be a group with no central guiding agency.  Even the unorganized militia, when called into service, knows full well who the guiding agency is.
> 
> It's just that we don't have to be a part of the organized militia in order to own private firearms... and even if we are not in the militia, we still have a Right to keep and bear Arms.  The Second Amendment is not about the military.  It is about the Right of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> A simple appeal to ignorance (of the law).
> 
> Only in right wing cognitive disconnect can anyone be unconnected with the militia, only with militia service, well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos,  Somehow even my direct quotes have been attacked and contain strikethroughs.
> 
> You're in no position to be claiming I'm wrong when *everything* you've posted on this thread has been* refuted and proven wrong* by standing court precedents to be inaccurate..That is everything that can be understood in English.  The rest of your tripe is pretentious cant and uteer nonsense.
Click to expand...

dude; it is the law, no amount of appealing to ignorance will work on this anymore. 

The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or you are considered, unorganized (by our republican forms of Government).


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You're a dumbass.  I'm not appealing to the law.  The law is the law.  I'm appealing to the posters.  You're arguing with the *United States Supreme Court*. Did it ever dawn on you that you might be freaking delusional?  You would be well advised to give it some thought.
> 
> There are a lot of people who own firearms and are not active in the militia.  The weapons and the* Rights of the people* are protected from infringements.
> 
> 
> 
> Not even the Judicature is immune, as a privilege, from political influence.
> 
> Nothing but repeal instead of a valid argument, means I win, by default.
> 
> This was established as federal doctrine, with the ratification of our federal Constitution:
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on _
> _Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> If you aren't the most delusional person on this board, there isn't a cow in the whole state of Texas.
> 
> Your repetition of nonsense doesn't mean squat, danielpalos.  You've been repeating bullshit this many years because you thought the repetition means you win?  Really?  You've only to proven to be the most delusional poster on USM.
> 
> Look dude,, the words unorganized and *disorganized* are different in the English language.
> 
> The word *unorganized* is "_not brought into a coherent or well-ordered whole_"
> 
> The word *disorganized* is lacking coherence, system, or central guiding agency :not organized  (Disorganized is the antonym for regulated; unorganized is NOT)
> 
> I found great synonyms for "regulate" on the new Thesaurus.com!
> 
> What you're selling is snake oil.  You've been lying.  The unorganized militia simply means we haven't been brought into the regular militia.  A disorganized militia would be a group with no central guiding agency.  Even the unorganized militia, when called into service, knows full well who the guiding agency is.
> 
> It's just that we don't have to be a part of the organized militia in order to own private firearms... and even if we are not in the militia, we still have a Right to keep and bear Arms.  The Second Amendment is not about the military.  It is about the Right of the people.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude, you don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> A simple appeal to ignorance (of the law).
> 
> Only in right wing cognitive disconnect can anyone be unconnected with the militia, only with militia service, well regulated.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos,  Somehow even my direct quotes have been attacked and contain strikethroughs.
> 
> You're in no position to be claiming I'm wrong when *everything* you've posted on this thread has been* refuted and proven wrong* by standing court precedents to be inaccurate..That is everything that can be understood in English.  The rest of your tripe is pretentious cant and uteer nonsense.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; it is the law, no amount of appealing to ignorance will work on this anymore.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or you are considered, unorganized (by our republican forms of Government).
Click to expand...


I told your dumb ass, I'm not appealing to *your* ignorance. If you don't understand the laws it's because you don't want to understand the law.  Anybody that does not understand you have a constitutionally protected individual Right to keep and bear Arms unconnected with service in a militia is an absolute idiot if they have read the posts on this thread and accessed the links.

I've offered so much proof that you've resorted to all kinds of dirty tricks to hide it, but that only shows that while you're patting yourself on the back, claiming victory, you're beginning to admit, via your desperation, you realize you're a bullshit artist and hardly anyone understands... much less agrees with your insanity.


----------



## Humorme

Unable to cite a single source to back his claims, danielpalos has tried every dirty trick ever heard of in order to promote some ridiculous platform regarding gun control that only he understands.  

His use of Hitler's National Socialism (repeating a lie over and over until it's accepted as truth) is despicable and a personal insult to me.  If anyone on this board understands what point he's trying to make, please inform us.

The founding fathers, having had to rise up against a tyrannical government founded our nation on God given, inherent, natural, absolute, *unalienable *Rights that are above the law.  The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Right to Life AND Liberty.  Without the requisite tools to defend your Rights, they aren't worth a fart in wild whirlwind.


----------



## danielpalos

no amount of appealing to ignorance will work on this anymore. 

The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or you are considered, unorganized (by our republican forms of Government).



> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## frigidweirdo

52ndStreet said:


> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.



No one's talking about infringing the Second Amendment, they're talking about amending the constitution to get RID OF the Second Amendment.

And no, the 2A shouldn't be got rid of because of the Vegas shooting, but because of the 10,000 people a year who die because of guns in the US.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> no amount of appealing to ignorance will work on this anymore.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or you are considered, unorganized (by our republican forms of Government).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...


That is utter bullshit; you've been *proven wrong* on that point and that is not what the law says.  Do you have any new material?


----------



## Humorme

frigidweirdo said:


> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about infringing the Second Amendment, they're talking about amending the constitution to get RID OF the Second Amendment.
> 
> And no, the 2A shouldn't be got rid of because of the Vegas shooting, but because of the 10,000 people a year who die because of guns in the US.
Click to expand...


You're not in the ballpark relative to numbers, but by your position, then alcohol should be banned.  More people die due to alcoholic beverages than firearms.  For every person killed by a firearm in America, *FIVE* nonsmokers will die due to second hand smoke because of cigarettes.  Do you have a proposal to ban them as well?

300,000 people die each year from obesity.  The major sources of the problem:  fast food, sodas, and refined sugar.  Do you advocate we crack down on fast food and require less sugar in sodas?

Car accidents cause more deaths than firearms.  Should we outlaw cars and concentrate on building more buses?


----------



## Humorme

Still unable to document his claims, danienpalos is trying yet again to lie by the repetition of some cockamamie cow dung he invented to sound good, but is totally meaningless.  He does not understand I'm not appealing to his ignorance of the law.  AND now I'm handicapped because my posts have strikethroughs which discourages people from reading my posts.

The harsh, hard core reality is that the Second Amendment, like the entire Bill of Rights, is a limitation on the government, *NOT* on the citizenry.   danielpalos argument is shot all to Hell (you gotta love the pun) when you consider that the federal government sells military rifles and pistols to the general public without them being in a militia.  

Buying M1 Garands from the US Government - CMP - Civilian Marksmanship Program - GunsAmerica Digest

The* Right of the people *shall not be infringed...


----------



## airplanemechanic

frigidweirdo said:


> And no, the 2A shouldn't be got rid of because of the Vegas shooting, but because of the 10,000 people a year who die because of guns in the US.



Well then I'll agree to that when you agree to get rid of cars, because 50,000 people a year die in their vehicles.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Humorme said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about infringing the Second Amendment, they're talking about amending the constitution to get RID OF the Second Amendment.
> 
> And no, the 2A shouldn't be got rid of because of the Vegas shooting, but because of the 10,000 people a year who die because of guns in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not in the ballpark relative to numbers, but by your position, then alcohol should be banned.  More people die due to alcoholic beverages than firearms.  For every person killed by a firearm in America, *FIVE* nonsmokers will die due to second hand smoke because of cigarettes.  Do you have a proposal to ban them as well?
> 
> 300,000 people die each year from obesity.  The major sources of the problem:  fast food, sodas, and refined sugar.  Do you advocate we crack down on fast food and require less sugar in sodas?
> 
> Car accidents cause more deaths than firearms.  Should we outlaw cars and concentrate on building more buses?
Click to expand...


Not in the ballpark? No, I am the fucking ballpark.

Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control

In the United States, annual firearm homicides total

2014: 10,945
2013: 11,208
2012: 11,622 
2011: 11,068
2010: 11,078
2009: 11,493
2008: 12,179
2007: 12,632
2006: 12,791
2005: 12,352
2004: 11,624
2003: 11,920
2002: 11,829
2001: 11,348
2000: 10,801
1999: 10,828
1998: 9,257

Alcohol is different to guns. If it were merely 10,000 people a year committing suicide with guns, then I'd have less of a problem with it. 

I believe that smoking should be limited, yes. People can smoke, whatever, but I don't want them smoking around me. The UK implemented a smoking ban and it was great, you could go to the pub and not get filled with smoke. Go to restaurants and the same. If an individual wants to smoke around other smokers, then whatever, but not around non-smokers. 

I have actually called for things to combat obesity. In the UK companies like Coca-Cola, Mars, Pepsi, all of those, get massive tax deals and they hardly pay anything. Healthy food suppliers are paying full taxes. It's ridiculous. 

But it works for the rich. You buy their sugary items, they get rich. Then you go to hospital and the hospitals and insurance companies get rich too. None of these want to lose their money, so they make sure Americans are fat ass sugar guzzlers.


----------



## frigidweirdo

airplanemechanic said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> And no, the 2A shouldn't be got rid of because of the Vegas shooting, but because of the 10,000 people a year who die because of guns in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Well then I'll agree to that when you agree to get rid of cars, because 50,000 people a year die in their vehicles.
Click to expand...


Yes, they do, and it's a travesty.

List of countries by traffic-related death rate - Wikipedia

The US has a 10.6 per 100,000 rate of fatalities on the road, or 12.9 per 100,000 motor vehicles. 

The UK has a 2.9 per 100,000 rate of fatalities and a 5.1 per 100,000 motor vehicles. 

The US's rate is way too high. So, I would actually be in favor of measures that would reduce the US's death rate on the roads by 2/3rds.


----------



## MaryL

I like guns. I like the second amendment. But we need to repeal that mess, we have had numerous presidents shot down, let alone all the faceless people over the past years slaughtered BY guns, We need to be rational, and end THAT.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

MaryL said:


> I like guns. I like the second amendment. But we need to repeal that mess, we have had numerous presidents shot down, let alone all the faceless people over the past years slaughtered BY guns, We need to be rational, and end THAT.


Getting rid of the 2A won't solve any problem, as an individual, I still have the right to own a weapon via the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and I have the inherent and natural right to self defense. :SHRUG:


----------



## MaryL

So, getting rid of guns won't stop gun violence. How so?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

Humorme said:


> Unable to cite a single source to back his claims, danielpalos has tried every dirty trick ever heard of in order to promote some ridiculous platform regarding gun control that only he understands.
> 
> His use of Hitler's National Socialism (repeating a lie over and over until it's accepted as truth) is despicable and a personal insult to me.  If anyone on this board understands what point he's trying to make, please inform us.
> 
> The founding fathers, having had to rise up against a tyrannical government founded our nation on God given, inherent, natural, absolute, *unalienable *Rights that are above the law.  The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Right to Life AND Liberty.  Without the requisite tools to defend your Rights, they aren't worth a fart in wild whirlwind.


The tools the Framers intended citizens to use to defend their rights are the ballot box and the courts – not guns.

Indeed, there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that ‘authorizes’ citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a government lawfully elected in accordance with the Constitution reflecting the will of the majority of the people. 

Citizens have the right to posses firearms to protect life and property, the First Amendment protects citizens’ rights and protected liberties.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

MaryL said:


> So, getting rid of guns won't stop gun violence. How so?


Getting rid of the 2A won't get rid of guns. :SHRUG:


----------



## Humorme

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unable to cite a single source to back his claims, danielpalos has tried every dirty trick ever heard of in order to promote some ridiculous platform regarding gun control that only he understands.
> 
> His use of Hitler's National Socialism (repeating a lie over and over until it's accepted as truth) is despicable and a personal insult to me.  If anyone on this board understands what point he's trying to make, please inform us.
> 
> The founding fathers, having had to rise up against a tyrannical government founded our nation on God given, inherent, natural, absolute, *unalienable *Rights that are above the law.  The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Right to Life AND Liberty.  Without the requisite tools to defend your Rights, they aren't worth a fart in wild whirlwind.
> 
> 
> 
> The tools the Framers intended citizens to use to defend their rights are the ballot box and the courts – not guns.
> 
> Indeed, there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that ‘authorizes’ citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a government lawfully elected in accordance with the Constitution reflecting the will of the majority of the people.
> 
> Citizens have the right to posses firearms to protect life and property, the First Amendment protects citizens’ rights and protected liberties.
Click to expand...


You haven't studied American history, have you?


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Unable to cite a single source to back his claims, danielpalos has tried every dirty trick ever heard of in order to promote some ridiculous platform regarding gun control that only he understands.
> 
> His use of Hitler's National Socialism (repeating a lie over and over until it's accepted as truth) is despicable and a personal insult to me.  If anyone on this board understands what point he's trying to make, please inform us.
> 
> The founding fathers, having had to rise up against a tyrannical government founded our nation on God given, inherent, natural, absolute, *unalienable *Rights that are above the law.  The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Right to Life AND Liberty.  Without the requisite tools to defend your Rights, they aren't worth a fart in wild whirlwind.
> 
> 
> 
> The tools the Framers intended citizens to use to defend their rights are the ballot box and the courts – not guns.
> 
> Indeed, there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that ‘authorizes’ citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a government lawfully elected in accordance with the Constitution reflecting the will of the majority of the people.
> 
> Citizens have the right to posses firearms to protect life and property, the First Amendment protects citizens’ rights and protected liberties.
Click to expand...



You're obviously not attuned to the First Principles of this country:

"..._whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, & to institute new government._.."  (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

“_Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops_.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787


"_The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed_.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"_The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them_.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Are you danielpalos posting under another name?  I noticed that the moment he stops, another person will rekindle this B.S. and most of the things I can say to refute your errors will, most likely suffer strikethroughs so that nobody will be inclined to read the truth.  *AFTER YOU HAVE EXHAUSTED ALL OF YOUR LEGAL AND NONVIOLENT AVENUES OF REDRESS*, YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO USE FORCE IN ORDER TO STOP TYRANNY.


----------



## Humorme

_"_The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it_."_

_— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

"Let Mr. Madison tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up from the people? Unless a miracle shall interpose, no nation ever did, nor ever can retain its liberty after the loss of the sword and the purse.

..Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined."  _*Patrick Henry
*
Authorized?  Irrelevant.  The Second Amendment serves a bottom line purpose* AFTER all other avenues of redress have been exhausted*.


----------



## Humorme

MaryL said:


> So, getting rid of guns won't stop gun violence. How so?



Since you did not quote anyone, I'm not sure who you are addressing.  

The United States is not even in the TOP TEN most violent nations in the world.  

Most Dangerous Countries In the World - Top Ten List - TheTopTens®

Most, if not all the TOP TEN most violent countries have gun control; *NONE* of them have the Second Amendment.  If you were sick of the killing and violence, you would concern yourself with the root of the problem, NOT the symptoms.

Wholesale "legal" drugs being prescribed with no regulation, the flooding of America with foreigners (ESPECIALLY Muslims at war with the U.S.), the illegal drug trade, ethnic / religious / racial tensions that we haven't addressed along with the fact that America does not address the problem of having scores of mentally ill people not being cared for are more relevant to the who is being killed as opposed to by what methods they are being killed.


----------



## Humorme

frigidweirdo said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about infringing the Second Amendment, they're talking about amending the constitution to get RID OF the Second Amendment.
> 
> And no, the 2A shouldn't be got rid of because of the Vegas shooting, but because of the 10,000 people a year who die because of guns in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not in the ballpark relative to numbers, but by your position, then alcohol should be banned.  More people die due to alcoholic beverages than firearms.  For every person killed by a firearm in America, *FIVE* nonsmokers will die due to second hand smoke because of cigarettes.  Do you have a proposal to ban them as well?
> 
> 300,000 people die each year from obesity.  The major sources of the problem:  fast food, sodas, and refined sugar.  Do you advocate we crack down on fast food and require less sugar in sodas?
> 
> Car accidents cause more deaths than firearms.  Should we outlaw cars and concentrate on building more buses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in the ballpark? No, I am the fucking ballpark.
> 
> Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control
> 
> In the United States, annual firearm homicides total
> 
> 2014: 10,945
> 2013: 11,208
> 2012: 11,622
> 2011: 11,068
> 2010: 11,078
> 2009: 11,493
> 2008: 12,179
> 2007: 12,632
> 2006: 12,791
> 2005: 12,352
> 2004: 11,624
> 2003: 11,920
> 2002: 11,829
> 2001: 11,348
> 2000: 10,801
> 1999: 10,828
> 1998: 9,257
> 
> Alcohol is different to guns. If it were merely 10,000 people a year committing suicide with guns, then I'd have less of a problem with it.
> 
> I believe that smoking should be limited, yes. People can smoke, whatever, but I don't want them smoking around me. The UK implemented a smoking ban and it was great, you could go to the pub and not get filled with smoke. Go to restaurants and the same. If an individual wants to smoke around other smokers, then whatever, but not around non-smokers.
> 
> I have actually called for things to combat obesity. In the UK companies like Coca-Cola, Mars, Pepsi, all of those, get massive tax deals and they hardly pay anything. Healthy food suppliers are paying full taxes. It's ridiculous.
> 
> But it works for the rich. You buy their sugary items, they get rich. Then you go to hospital and the hospitals and insurance companies get rich too. None of these want to lose their money, so they make sure Americans are fat ass sugar guzzlers.
Click to expand...


16,238 murders per year in the U.S.  Of those 11,068 are by firearms.

How many people are murdered every day in the United States?

That's the facts.

If you take out the people killed by political jihadists (i.e. Muslims) and that can be done by banning Muslims from entering the United States what would the new figure be?

Now,  deduct the numbers of people on SSRIs that are not being monitored that end up committing mass shootings, what would the new figure be?

Take those who were *KNOWN TO BE MENTALLY UNSTABLE AND POSING A THREAT *off the streets, what would the new figure be?

I'll bet the government never does a yearly tally to tell you those answers.  All totaled, it's most gun violence.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Humorme said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about infringing the Second Amendment, they're talking about amending the constitution to get RID OF the Second Amendment.
> 
> And no, the 2A shouldn't be got rid of because of the Vegas shooting, but because of the 10,000 people a year who die because of guns in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not in the ballpark relative to numbers, but by your position, then alcohol should be banned.  More people die due to alcoholic beverages than firearms.  For every person killed by a firearm in America, *FIVE* nonsmokers will die due to second hand smoke because of cigarettes.  Do you have a proposal to ban them as well?
> 
> 300,000 people die each year from obesity.  The major sources of the problem:  fast food, sodas, and refined sugar.  Do you advocate we crack down on fast food and require less sugar in sodas?
> 
> Car accidents cause more deaths than firearms.  Should we outlaw cars and concentrate on building more buses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in the ballpark? No, I am the fucking ballpark.
> 
> Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control
> 
> In the United States, annual firearm homicides total
> 
> 2014: 10,945
> 2013: 11,208
> 2012: 11,622
> 2011: 11,068
> 2010: 11,078
> 2009: 11,493
> 2008: 12,179
> 2007: 12,632
> 2006: 12,791
> 2005: 12,352
> 2004: 11,624
> 2003: 11,920
> 2002: 11,829
> 2001: 11,348
> 2000: 10,801
> 1999: 10,828
> 1998: 9,257
> 
> Alcohol is different to guns. If it were merely 10,000 people a year committing suicide with guns, then I'd have less of a problem with it.
> 
> I believe that smoking should be limited, yes. People can smoke, whatever, but I don't want them smoking around me. The UK implemented a smoking ban and it was great, you could go to the pub and not get filled with smoke. Go to restaurants and the same. If an individual wants to smoke around other smokers, then whatever, but not around non-smokers.
> 
> I have actually called for things to combat obesity. In the UK companies like Coca-Cola, Mars, Pepsi, all of those, get massive tax deals and they hardly pay anything. Healthy food suppliers are paying full taxes. It's ridiculous.
> 
> But it works for the rich. You buy their sugary items, they get rich. Then you go to hospital and the hospitals and insurance companies get rich too. None of these want to lose their money, so they make sure Americans are fat ass sugar guzzlers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 16,238 murders per year in the U.S.  Of those 11,068 are by firearms.
> 
> How many people are murdered every day in the United States?
> 
> That's the facts.
> 
> If you take out the people killed by political jihadists (i.e. Muslims) and that can be done by banning Muslims from entering the United States what would the new figure be?
> 
> Now,  deduct the numbers of people on SSRIs that are not being monitored that end up committing mass shootings, what would the new figure be?
> 
> Take those who were *KNOWN TO BE MENTALLY UNSTABLE AND POSING A THREAT *off the streets, what would the new figure be?
> 
> I'll bet the government never does a yearly tally to tell you those answers.  All totaled, it's most gun violence.
Click to expand...


Okay, so you said I'm not in the ballpark, and yet, I said 10,000 a year, you said in one year there are 11,068. Sounds like the ballpark to me. 

As for your concern about Muslims, how many "political jihadists" have killed?

In the USA in 2016 there were two terrorist attacks, 49 people died in Orlando and zero people died in Ohio.

You take 11,068 and you minus 49, you still have more than 11,000 attacks. 

Why you're taking these people out, I have no idea. In Orlando the guy used GUNS....


----------



## hunarcy

MaryL said:


> I like guns. I like the second amendment. But we need to repeal that mess, we have had numerous presidents shot down, let alone all the faceless people over the past years slaughtered BY guns, We need to be rational, and end THAT.



I understand your position.  However, I disagree and you'll never get it done.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no amount of appealing to ignorance will work on this anymore.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or you are considered, unorganized (by our republican forms of Government).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is utter bullshit; you've been *proven wrong* on that point and that is not what the law says.  Do you have any new material?
Click to expand...

How is it bullshit?  That is the concept of the militia as discussed for ratification of our federal Constitution.

Simply appealing to ignorance and claiming You are right, only may work, twice a day, right winger.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> Still unable to document his claims, danienpalos is trying yet again to lie by the repetition of some cockamamie cow dung he invented to sound good, but is totally meaningless.  He does not understand I'm not appealing to his ignorance of the law.  AND now I'm handicapped because my posts have strikethroughs which discourages people from reading my posts.
> 
> The harsh, hard core reality is that the Second Amendment, like the entire Bill of Rights, is a limitation on the government, *NOT* on the citizenry.   danielpalos argument is shot all to Hell (you gotta love the pun) when you consider that the federal government sells military rifles and pistols to the general public without them being in a militia.
> 
> Buying M1 Garands from the US Government - CMP - Civilian Marksmanship Program - GunsAmerica Digest


Just meaningless gibberish.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no amount of appealing to ignorance will work on this anymore.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or you are considered, unorganized (by our republican forms of Government).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is utter bullshit; you've been *proven wrong* on that point and that is not what the law says.  Do you have any new material?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it bullshit?  That is the concept of the militia as discussed for ratification of our federal Constitution.
> 
> Simply appealing to ignorance and claiming You are right, only may work, twice a day, right winger.
Click to expand...


You have *NEVER* been able to cite a single source in your favor; that is what proves you wrong,  commie.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no amount of appealing to ignorance will work on this anymore.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or you are considered, unorganized (by our republican forms of Government).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is utter bullshit; you've been *proven wrong* on that point and that is not what the law says.  Do you have any new material?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it bullshit?  That is the concept of the militia as discussed for ratification of our federal Constitution.
> 
> Simply appealing to ignorance and claiming You are right, only may work, twice a day, right winger.
Click to expand...


*You* are the one posting gibberish.  WTF is this you can't appeal to ignorance of the law?  That is absolutely meaningless.  I realize that you are the most ignorant poster on these boards relative to the law.  I'm not appealing to you.  You're not the only poster on this board.  

You don't have to be in a militia to own a firearm; the Right to keep and bear Arms is inclusive of a Right to own your own *private, individual Arms.*


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no amount of appealing to ignorance will work on this anymore.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or you are considered, unorganized (by our republican forms of Government).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is utter bullshit; you've been *proven wrong* on that point and that is not what the law says.  Do you have any new material?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it bullshit?  That is the concept of the militia as discussed for ratification of our federal Constitution.
> 
> Simply appealing to ignorance and claiming You are right, only may work, twice a day, right winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have *NEVER* been able to cite a single source in your favor; that is what proves you wrong,  commie.
Click to expand...

dude; You must be on the Right Wing.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on 
Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788


----------



## Humorme

frigidweirdo said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 52ndStreet said:
> 
> 
> 
> We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about infringing the Second Amendment, they're talking about amending the constitution to get RID OF the Second Amendment.
> 
> And no, the 2A shouldn't be got rid of because of the Vegas shooting, but because of the 10,000 people a year who die because of guns in the US.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You're not in the ballpark relative to numbers, but by your position, then alcohol should be banned.  More people die due to alcoholic beverages than firearms.  For every person killed by a firearm in America, *FIVE* nonsmokers will die due to second hand smoke because of cigarettes.  Do you have a proposal to ban them as well?
> 
> 300,000 people die each year from obesity.  The major sources of the problem:  fast food, sodas, and refined sugar.  Do you advocate we crack down on fast food and require less sugar in sodas?
> 
> Car accidents cause more deaths than firearms.  Should we outlaw cars and concentrate on building more buses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in the ballpark? No, I am the fucking ballpark.
> 
> Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control
> 
> In the United States, annual firearm homicides total
> 
> 2014: 10,945
> 2013: 11,208
> 2012: 11,622
> 2011: 11,068
> 2010: 11,078
> 2009: 11,493
> 2008: 12,179
> 2007: 12,632
> 2006: 12,791
> 2005: 12,352
> 2004: 11,624
> 2003: 11,920
> 2002: 11,829
> 2001: 11,348
> 2000: 10,801
> 1999: 10,828
> 1998: 9,257
> 
> Alcohol is different to guns. If it were merely 10,000 people a year committing suicide with guns, then I'd have less of a problem with it.
> 
> I believe that smoking should be limited, yes. People can smoke, whatever, but I don't want them smoking around me. The UK implemented a smoking ban and it was great, you could go to the pub and not get filled with smoke. Go to restaurants and the same. If an individual wants to smoke around other smokers, then whatever, but not around non-smokers.
> 
> I have actually called for things to combat obesity. In the UK companies like Coca-Cola, Mars, Pepsi, all of those, get massive tax deals and they hardly pay anything. Healthy food suppliers are paying full taxes. It's ridiculous.
> 
> But it works for the rich. You buy their sugary items, they get rich. Then you go to hospital and the hospitals and insurance companies get rich too. None of these want to lose their money, so they make sure Americans are fat ass sugar guzzlers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 16,238 murders per year in the U.S.  Of those 11,068 are by firearms.
> 
> How many people are murdered every day in the United States?
> 
> That's the facts.
> 
> If you take out the people killed by political jihadists (i.e. Muslims) and that can be done by banning Muslims from entering the United States what would the new figure be?
> 
> Now,  deduct the numbers of people on SSRIs that are not being monitored that end up committing mass shootings, what would the new figure be?
> 
> Take those who were *KNOWN TO BE MENTALLY UNSTABLE AND POSING A THREAT *off the streets, what would the new figure be?
> 
> I'll bet the government never does a yearly tally to tell you those answers.  All totaled, it's most gun violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so you said I'm not in the ballpark, and yet, I said 10,000 a year, you said in one year there are 11,068. Sounds like the ballpark to me.
> 
> As for your concern about Muslims, how many "political jihadists" have killed?
> 
> In the USA in 2016 there were two terrorist attacks, 49 people died in Orlando and zero people died in Ohio.
> 
> You take 11,068 and you minus 49, you still have more than 11,000 attacks.
> 
> Why you're taking these people out, I have no idea. In Orlando the guy used GUNS....
Click to expand...


So, you focus on one, single event, ignore the balance of the question and back to your deceptive argument.  Let me fix this for you:

Most, if not all the mass shootings could have been stopped *without gun control*.  That is a fact.

The Fort Hood Shooter: A Different Psychiatric Perspective | HuffPost

Every mass shooting over last 20 years has one thing in common... and it's not guns

Adam Lanza | SSRI Stories

CNN - Columbine shooter was prescribed anti-depressant - April 29, 1999

The Role Of SSRI Anti-Depressants in the Columbine Shooting : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

How many more do you need?  Let's deal with the WHOLE TRUTH.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no amount of appealing to ignorance will work on this anymore.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or you are considered, unorganized (by our republican forms of Government).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> That is utter bullshit; you've been *proven wrong* on that point and that is not what the law says.  Do you have any new material?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it bullshit?  That is the concept of the militia as discussed for ratification of our federal Constitution.
> 
> Simply appealing to ignorance and claiming You are right, only may work, twice a day, right winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have *NEVER* been able to cite a single source in your favor; that is what proves you wrong,  commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; You must be on the Right Wing.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
Click to expand...


danielpalos, you must be a communist provocateur.  The law is what the law is.  The founding fathers had a well learned reason to intend for the general public to have their own private Arms.

You have not been able to acknowledge what the law IS... you try to sell easily disprovable bullshit that is NOT the way our law is practiced.  The right is just as adamant that I'm a leftie every time we discuss immigration law.  Yet the law is what the law is - and it does not favor them, just as the Second Amendment does not coincide with the snake oil you try to sell here.

When you see cops killing innocent people in the streets; when the government does not acknowledge nor respect the Constitution; when right and wrong are decided by power brokers that could enslave you on a whim, it is pure insanity to give up the Right to keep and bear Arms just because you hate guns. 

You've been shown that your terminology is wrong.  You've been proven to be a liar.  When the right celebrated the Heller decision, they denounced me for explaining how it was an attack on your *unalienable *Rights.  I realize that you and the right don't like this, but you guys really don't have a monopoly on everything.  There are views *other than* the simple mindedness you and they are selling.

BTW, What in the Hell do you find so funny about the fact that you cannot cite anything that supports your position and I have to be the one that points out the weakness in your posts?


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> no amount of appealing to ignorance will work on this anymore.
> 
> The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or you are considered, unorganized (by our republican forms of Government).
> 
> 
> 
> 
> That is utter bullshit; you've been *proven wrong* on that point and that is not what the law says.  Do you have any new material?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> How is it bullshit?  That is the concept of the militia as discussed for ratification of our federal Constitution.
> 
> Simply appealing to ignorance and claiming You are right, only may work, twice a day, right winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have *NEVER* been able to cite a single source in your favor; that is what proves you wrong,  commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; You must be on the Right Wing.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos, you must be a communist provocateur.  The law is what the law is.  The founding fathers had a well learned reason to intend for the general public to have their own private Arms.
> 
> You have not been able to acknowledge what the law IS... you try to sell easily disprovable bullshit that is NOT the way our law is practiced.  The right is just as adamant that I'm a leftie every time we discuss immigration law.  Yet the law is what the law is - and it does not favor them, just as the Second Amendment does not coincide with the snake oil you try to sell here.
> 
> When you see cops killing innocent people in the streets; when the government does not acknowledge nor respect the Constitution; when right and wrong are decided by power brokers that could enslave you on a whim, it is pure insanity to give up the Right to keep and bear Arms just because you hate guns.
> 
> You've been shown that your terminology is wrong.  You've been proven to be a liar.  When the right celebrated the Heller decision, they denounced me for explaining how it was an attack on your *unalienable *Rights.  I realize that you and the right don't like this, but you guys really don't have a monopoly on everything.  There are views *other than* the simple mindedness you and they are selling.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights, in any way, shape, or form.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

It is definitely not, the unorganized militia.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> That is utter bullshit; you've been *proven wrong* on that point and that is not what the law says.  Do you have any new material?
> 
> 
> 
> How is it bullshit?  That is the concept of the militia as discussed for ratification of our federal Constitution.
> 
> Simply appealing to ignorance and claiming You are right, only may work, twice a day, right winger.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You have *NEVER* been able to cite a single source in your favor; that is what proves you wrong,  commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; You must be on the Right Wing.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos, you must be a communist provocateur.  The law is what the law is.  The founding fathers had a well learned reason to intend for the general public to have their own private Arms.
> 
> You have not been able to acknowledge what the law IS... you try to sell easily disprovable bullshit that is NOT the way our law is practiced.  The right is just as adamant that I'm a leftie every time we discuss immigration law.  Yet the law is what the law is - and it does not favor them, just as the Second Amendment does not coincide with the snake oil you try to sell here.
> 
> When you see cops killing innocent people in the streets; when the government does not acknowledge nor respect the Constitution; when right and wrong are decided by power brokers that could enslave you on a whim, it is pure insanity to give up the Right to keep and bear Arms just because you hate guns.
> 
> You've been shown that your terminology is wrong.  You've been proven to be a liar.  When the right celebrated the Heller decision, they denounced me for explaining how it was an attack on your *unalienable *Rights.  I realize that you and the right don't like this, but you guys really don't have a monopoly on everything.  There are views *other than* the simple mindedness you and they are selling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights, in any way, shape, or form.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is definitely not, the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


For the umpteenth fucking time, *YOU ARE THE ONLY SWINGING RICHARD MAKING THIS ABOUT NATURAL RIGHTS*.  You're still wrong.  The Second Amendment, according to the *United States Supreme Court*, ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual Right to keep and bear Arms.  No matter how many times you try to dodge, deflect, and lie about it, that is their RULING. 

While the Second Amendment is about the security of a free state, *that's is not the whole truth*.  The Second Amendment is also about the *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*.  You denying that will never alter that fact.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> How is it bullshit?  That is the concept of the militia as discussed for ratification of our federal Constitution.
> 
> Simply appealing to ignorance and claiming You are right, only may work, twice a day, right winger.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You have *NEVER* been able to cite a single source in your favor; that is what proves you wrong,  commie.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> dude; You must be on the Right Wing.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos, you must be a communist provocateur.  The law is what the law is.  The founding fathers had a well learned reason to intend for the general public to have their own private Arms.
> 
> You have not been able to acknowledge what the law IS... you try to sell easily disprovable bullshit that is NOT the way our law is practiced.  The right is just as adamant that I'm a leftie every time we discuss immigration law.  Yet the law is what the law is - and it does not favor them, just as the Second Amendment does not coincide with the snake oil you try to sell here.
> 
> When you see cops killing innocent people in the streets; when the government does not acknowledge nor respect the Constitution; when right and wrong are decided by power brokers that could enslave you on a whim, it is pure insanity to give up the Right to keep and bear Arms just because you hate guns.
> 
> You've been shown that your terminology is wrong.  You've been proven to be a liar.  When the right celebrated the Heller decision, they denounced me for explaining how it was an attack on your *unalienable *Rights.  I realize that you and the right don't like this, but you guys really don't have a monopoly on everything.  There are views *other than* the simple mindedness you and they are selling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights, in any way, shape, or form.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is definitely not, the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth fucking time, *YOU ARE THE ONLY SWINGING RICHARD MAKING THIS ABOUT NATURAL RIGHTS*.  You're still wrong.  The Second Amendment, according to the *United States Supreme Court*, ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual Right to keep and bear Arms.  No matter how many times you try to dodge, deflect, and lie about it, that is their RULING.
> 
> While the Second Amendment is about the security of a free state, *that's is not the whole truth*.  The Second Amendment is also about the *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*.  You denying that will never alter that fact.
Click to expand...

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

It is definitely not, the unorganized militia.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> You have *NEVER* been able to cite a single source in your favor; that is what proves you wrong,  commie.
> 
> 
> 
> dude; You must be on the Right Wing.
> 
> "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
> — George Mason, in _Debates in Virginia Convention on
> Ratification of the Constitution_, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> danielpalos, you must be a communist provocateur.  The law is what the law is.  The founding fathers had a well learned reason to intend for the general public to have their own private Arms.
> 
> You have not been able to acknowledge what the law IS... you try to sell easily disprovable bullshit that is NOT the way our law is practiced.  The right is just as adamant that I'm a leftie every time we discuss immigration law.  Yet the law is what the law is - and it does not favor them, just as the Second Amendment does not coincide with the snake oil you try to sell here.
> 
> When you see cops killing innocent people in the streets; when the government does not acknowledge nor respect the Constitution; when right and wrong are decided by power brokers that could enslave you on a whim, it is pure insanity to give up the Right to keep and bear Arms just because you hate guns.
> 
> You've been shown that your terminology is wrong.  You've been proven to be a liar.  When the right celebrated the Heller decision, they denounced me for explaining how it was an attack on your *unalienable *Rights.  I realize that you and the right don't like this, but you guys really don't have a monopoly on everything.  There are views *other than* the simple mindedness you and they are selling.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights, in any way, shape, or form.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is definitely not, the unorganized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> For the umpteenth fucking time, *YOU ARE THE ONLY SWINGING RICHARD MAKING THIS ABOUT NATURAL RIGHTS*.  You're still wrong.  The Second Amendment, according to the *United States Supreme Court*, ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual Right to keep and bear Arms.  No matter how many times you try to dodge, deflect, and lie about it, that is their RULING.
> 
> While the Second Amendment is about the security of a free state, *that's is not the whole truth*.  The Second Amendment is also about the *RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE*.  You denying that will never alter that fact.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> It is definitely not, the unorganized militia.
Click to expand...


If the Second Amendment did not include an unorganized militia, you would not have found one mentioned in the United States Code, the official laws of the United States.  The Second Amendment is equally about the* Right of the people, NOT the right of a militia*.  You cannot make a case for what is not there, danielpalos.

You tried to make the bogus claim that the unorganized militia is the same as  a disorganized militia and that didn't work for you.  We looked at the definition of those words.


----------



## danielpalos

The People who are the unorganized militia are not declared necessary.


----------



## Liquid Reigns

danielpalos said:


> The People who are the unorganized militia are not declared necessary.


What of the people younger then 17 and older then 45 who are no longer considered part of the unorganized militia?


----------



## danielpalos

Only for the militia of the United States. 

The People are the militia of the several States.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos is posting easily disprovable B.S. regarding the Second Amendment.  Some of the relevant facts are these:

1)  The Second Amendment, like the rest of the Bill of Rights is a limitation on government,* not *a limitation on the Rights of the people.

"_The Constitution is not an instrument for the government to restrain the people, it is an instrument for the people to restrain the government — lest it come to dominate our lives and interests_."  Patrick Henry


2)  There are NO statutes limiting gun ownership to militias only

3)  The classes of militia are the organized militia and the unorganized militia.  The word unorganized does not indicate that the unorganized militia is in any way, shape, fashion or form disorganized NOR that it is antithetical to the organized militia

4)  The fact that the United States Supreme Court ruled that you have a right to keep and bear Arms *NOT* connected to service in a militia ought to be enough to let you know that the Second Amendment is as much about an* individual Right* as it is about a militia.


----------



## Humorme

5)  While the Second Amendment does not say that the people are necessary, it would be damn ridiculous to have a militia and no people to comprise it.  What the Second Amendment clearly *does not say* (regardless of how many times danielpalos implies it) is that you are unnecessary unless you are in the militia

6)  The Second Amendment clearly says that the *Right of the people* shall not be infringed

7)  There is no support in the Constitution, Federalist Papers, Anti-Federalist Papers, Articles of Confederation, or the Declaration of Independence for thinking that one must be in the militia in order to have a military firearm


----------



## danielpalos

There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment.


----------



## danielpalos

That is not the point of our Second Amendment. It is about the security of a free State, not Individual rights.


----------



## Humorme

According to Wikipedia relative to the Heller decision:

"_The_ {Appeals} _court then held that the Second Amendment "protects an individual right to keep and bear arms", that the "right existed prior to the formation of the new government under the Constitution", also stating that the right was "premised on the private use of arms for activities such as hunting and self-defense, the latter being understood as resistance to either private lawlessness or the depredations of a tyrannical government (or a threat from abroad)." They also noted that though the right to bear arms also helped preserve the citizen militia, *"the activities [the Amendment] protects are not limited to militia service, nor is an individual's enjoyment of the right contingent upon his or her continued or intermittent enrollment in the militia." *The court determined that handguns are "Arms" and concluded that thus they may not be banned by the District of Columbia_."

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

The United States Supreme Court upheld the Appeals Court, ruling:

*"The Supreme Court held*

(_1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm* unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home_.

_*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Again, according to Wikipedia:

_"The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), summed up the Heller's findings and reasoning:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the *Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment "guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"*(id. at 628)_"

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

danielpalos, unless you have a United States Supreme Court ruling after 2008 interpreting the Second Amendment then you are *clearly wrong*.


----------



## Humorme

We will work around the strikethroughs:

"_The Illinois Supreme Court in People v. Aguilar (2013), summed up the Heller's findings and reasoning:

In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Supreme Court undertook its first-ever "in-depth examination" of the second amendment's meaning Id. at 635. After a lengthy historical discussion, the Court ultimately concluded that the second amendment "guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation" (id. at 592); that "central to" this right is "the inherent right of self-defense"_(_id_. at 628)"

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia
danielpalos,  Unless you have a United States Supreme Court ruling after 2008, you are* clearly wrong*.  See my previous post.


----------



## Humorme

Desperate attempts by someone to keep you from figuring out that someone don't want the truth to be told.


----------



## Humorme

Isn't it strange that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with danielpalos, but I am not allowed to make the point?


----------



## airplanemechanic

MaryL said:


> So, getting rid of guns won't stop gun violence. How so?



You do realize that guns are not the source of ALL violence, right? I know that might come as a shock to you if you're a regular watcher of MSNBC. But get this.....for centuries before the first gun was invented and used, people were violent with each other, even killing one another with swords, rocks, bows and arrows, etc.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Humorme said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> No one's talking about infringing the Second Amendment, they're talking about amending the constitution to get RID OF the Second Amendment.
> 
> And no, the 2A shouldn't be got rid of because of the Vegas shooting, but because of the 10,000 people a year who die because of guns in the US.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> You're not in the ballpark relative to numbers, but by your position, then alcohol should be banned.  More people die due to alcoholic beverages than firearms.  For every person killed by a firearm in America, *FIVE* nonsmokers will die due to second hand smoke because of cigarettes.  Do you have a proposal to ban them as well?
> 
> 300,000 people die each year from obesity.  The major sources of the problem:  fast food, sodas, and refined sugar.  Do you advocate we crack down on fast food and require less sugar in sodas?
> 
> Car accidents cause more deaths than firearms.  Should we outlaw cars and concentrate on building more buses?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Not in the ballpark? No, I am the fucking ballpark.
> 
> Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control
> 
> In the United States, annual firearm homicides total
> 
> 2014: 10,945
> 2013: 11,208
> 2012: 11,622
> 2011: 11,068
> 2010: 11,078
> 2009: 11,493
> 2008: 12,179
> 2007: 12,632
> 2006: 12,791
> 2005: 12,352
> 2004: 11,624
> 2003: 11,920
> 2002: 11,829
> 2001: 11,348
> 2000: 10,801
> 1999: 10,828
> 1998: 9,257
> 
> Alcohol is different to guns. If it were merely 10,000 people a year committing suicide with guns, then I'd have less of a problem with it.
> 
> I believe that smoking should be limited, yes. People can smoke, whatever, but I don't want them smoking around me. The UK implemented a smoking ban and it was great, you could go to the pub and not get filled with smoke. Go to restaurants and the same. If an individual wants to smoke around other smokers, then whatever, but not around non-smokers.
> 
> I have actually called for things to combat obesity. In the UK companies like Coca-Cola, Mars, Pepsi, all of those, get massive tax deals and they hardly pay anything. Healthy food suppliers are paying full taxes. It's ridiculous.
> 
> But it works for the rich. You buy their sugary items, they get rich. Then you go to hospital and the hospitals and insurance companies get rich too. None of these want to lose their money, so they make sure Americans are fat ass sugar guzzlers.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 16,238 murders per year in the U.S.  Of those 11,068 are by firearms.
> 
> How many people are murdered every day in the United States?
> 
> That's the facts.
> 
> If you take out the people killed by political jihadists (i.e. Muslims) and that can be done by banning Muslims from entering the United States what would the new figure be?
> 
> Now,  deduct the numbers of people on SSRIs that are not being monitored that end up committing mass shootings, what would the new figure be?
> 
> Take those who were *KNOWN TO BE MENTALLY UNSTABLE AND POSING A THREAT *off the streets, what would the new figure be?
> 
> I'll bet the government never does a yearly tally to tell you those answers.  All totaled, it's most gun violence.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Okay, so you said I'm not in the ballpark, and yet, I said 10,000 a year, you said in one year there are 11,068. Sounds like the ballpark to me.
> 
> As for your concern about Muslims, how many "political jihadists" have killed?
> 
> In the USA in 2016 there were two terrorist attacks, 49 people died in Orlando and zero people died in Ohio.
> 
> You take 11,068 and you minus 49, you still have more than 11,000 attacks.
> 
> Why you're taking these people out, I have no idea. In Orlando the guy used GUNS....
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> So, you focus on one, single event, ignore the balance of the question and back to your deceptive argument.  Let me fix this for you:
> 
> Most, if not all the mass shootings could have been stopped *without gun control*.  That is a fact.
> 
> The Fort Hood Shooter: A Different Psychiatric Perspective | HuffPost
> 
> Every mass shooting over last 20 years has one thing in common... and it's not guns
> 
> Adam Lanza | SSRI Stories
> 
> CNN - Columbine shooter was prescribed anti-depressant - April 29, 1999
> 
> The Role Of SSRI Anti-Depressants in the Columbine Shooting : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive
> 
> How many more do you need?  Let's deal with the WHOLE TRUTH.
Click to expand...


Could have been is different to were. 

Actually my overall argument on just about anything on this forum is that unless the way people vote in elections changes, there's really not much point in doing anything.

Proportional Representation would increase the number of parties in Congress, it would allow people to vote for who they WANT rather than who they don't want, it would allow for more oversight, it would make it harder for the rich to control government, and it would allow more than 12 states to participate in the Presidential election. 

It would allow for the people to control government more and for more sensible politics and less partisan politics, which means it might actually be worth considering things, because there might be a chance that it would actually work, right now govt is so stuck up with partisan glue, that govt doesn't work.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Humorme said:


> Isn't it strange that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with danielpalos, but I am not allowed to make the point?



danielpalos is only here for entertainment. That you haven't put him on the ignore list is the most worrying thing.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> Isn't it strange that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with danielpalos, but I am not allowed to make the point?


So what, it is a simple appeal to ignorance. 

Posse comitatus is the common law.


----------



## Humorme

frigidweirdo said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it strange that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with danielpalos, but I am not allowed to make the point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos is only here for entertainment. That you haven't put him on the ignore list is the most worrying thing.
Click to expand...


His crap gets old and somebody needs to expose the consummate troll.  None of his crap makes any sense.  He yammers on and on how you can't appeal to his ignorance of the law and he contradicts all known constitutional law on the subject of gun control.


----------



## Markle

MaryL said:


> So, getting rid of guns won't stop gun violence. How so?



Who is going to turn in their guns?


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it strange that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with danielpalos, but I am not allowed to make the point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos is only here for entertainment. That you haven't put him on the ignore list is the most worrying thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His crap gets old and somebody needs to expose the consummate troll.  None of his crap makes any sense.  He yammers on and on how you can't appeal to his ignorance of the law and he contradicts all known constitutional law on the subject of gun control.
Click to expand...

Don't blame me, You are clueless and Causeless.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it strange that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with danielpalos, but I am not allowed to make the point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos is only here for entertainment. That you haven't put him on the ignore list is the most worrying thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His crap gets old and somebody needs to expose the consummate troll.  None of his crap makes any sense.  He yammers on and on how you can't appeal to his ignorance of the law and he contradicts all known constitutional law on the subject of gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't blame me, You are clueless and Causeless.
Click to expand...


As been reportedly proven, the only swinging Richard that is causeless and clueless on this board is *YOU*.  You have served a purpose however.  Most people who do access the links get at the truth. 

At least once a week, either on the threads or in PM, someone asks why I don't just put you on ignore.  It's because you're like Hitler with his observation that if you tell a lie enough times, it will be accepted as truth.  Your shit has *NO BASIS IN FACT*.  You are the only poster who has proclaimed your ignorance of the law and tried to project your weaknesses onto pro - gun posters.

They accept your capitulation and your admission that you do not have a cause; that you are politically / historically ignorant; that you are clueless and cannot find one single source upon which to rely on for the propagating of your* absolute insanity*.


----------



## Humorme

Markle said:


> MaryL said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, getting rid of guns won't stop gun violence. How so?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Who is going to turn in their guns?
Click to expand...


I used to watch the videos of people in Australia and Great Britain  surrendering their weapons and worrying about Americans doing the same thing.

Then I remembered who we are, what our history is and how many people will not subject themselves to a yoke of tyranny by surrendering their weapons.  They still know our history and our destiny.


----------



## frigidweirdo

Humorme said:


> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it strange that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with danielpalos, but I am not allowed to make the point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos is only here for entertainment. That you haven't put him on the ignore list is the most worrying thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His crap gets old and somebody needs to expose the consummate troll.  None of his crap makes any sense.  He yammers on and on how you can't appeal to his ignorance of the law and he contradicts all known constitutional law on the subject of gun control.
Click to expand...


It doesn't matter if you expose him. He doesn't care, because he's not here to be taken seriously. He only gets his kicks when people actually think he's being serious. 

On the 2A issue I've been looking at the posts and replying to some of those on my ignore list, but not that one, I remember he's a waste of time.


----------



## Humorme

frigidweirdo said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it strange that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with danielpalos, but I am not allowed to make the point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos is only here for entertainment. That you haven't put him on the ignore list is the most worrying thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His crap gets old and somebody needs to expose the consummate troll.  None of his crap makes any sense.  He yammers on and on how you can't appeal to his ignorance of the law and he contradicts all known constitutional law on the subject of gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> It doesn't matter if you expose him. He doesn't care, because he's not here to be taken seriously. He only gets his kicks when people actually think he's being serious.
> 
> On the 2A issue I've been looking at the posts and replying to some of those on my ignore list, but not that one, I remember he's a waste of time.
Click to expand...


You might be right.  There are some children who love to post on this board and they are content to badger posters.  They are just smart enough to keep on the good side of the moderators and not get banned, but they are here for the express purpose to get their kicks talking smack that they are too chickenshit to say to peoples face in public for obvious reasons.

danielpalos gets away with insulting people and if he gets insulted, the mods will delete the perceived insult.  So, I've been fighting back because nothing the troll says makes any common sense and it isn't in English.  I just treat his insanity as an excuse to put the facts on the board and allow others to look at both sides of the argument - that is if danielpalos even has a side... that guy really IS clueless and causeless.  

Thanks for the advice, however.  It might be the only way to be done with his insanity... just don't bother reading any of it.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it strange that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with danielpalos, but I am not allowed to make the point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos is only here for entertainment. That you haven't put him on the ignore list is the most worrying thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His crap gets old and somebody needs to expose the consummate troll.  None of his crap makes any sense.  He yammers on and on how you can't appeal to his ignorance of the law and he contradicts all known constitutional law on the subject of gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't blame me, You are clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As been reportedly proven, the only swinging Richard that is causeless and clueless on this board is *YOU*.  You have served a purpose however.  Most people who do access the links get at the truth.
> 
> At least once a week, either on the threads or in PM, someone asks why I don't just put you on ignore.  It's because you're like Hitler with his observation that if you tell a lie enough times, it will be accepted as truth.  Your shit has *NO BASIS IN FACT*.  You are the only poster who has proclaimed your ignorance of the law and tried to project your weaknesses onto pro - gun posters.
> 
> They accept your capitulation and your admission that you do not have a cause; that you are politically / historically ignorant; that you are clueless and cannot find one single source upon which to rely on for the propagating of your* absolute insanity*.
Click to expand...

I resort to the fewest fallacies in my arguments.  What lies or fallacies have you found in my arguments?

None.   

Y'all merely project and claim what y'all are doing on others.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Isn't it strange that the United States Supreme Court disagrees with danielpalos, but I am not allowed to make the point?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos is only here for entertainment. That you haven't put him on the ignore list is the most worrying thing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> His crap gets old and somebody needs to expose the consummate troll.  None of his crap makes any sense.  He yammers on and on how you can't appeal to his ignorance of the law and he contradicts all known constitutional law on the subject of gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't blame me, You are clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As been reportedly proven, the only swinging Richard that is causeless and clueless on this board is *YOU*.  You have served a purpose however.  Most people who do access the links get at the truth.
> 
> At least once a week, either on the threads or in PM, someone asks why I don't just put you on ignore.  It's because you're like Hitler with his observation that if you tell a lie enough times, it will be accepted as truth.  Your shit has *NO BASIS IN FACT*.  You are the only poster who has proclaimed your ignorance of the law and tried to project your weaknesses onto pro - gun posters.
> 
> They accept your capitulation and your admission that you do not have a cause; that you are politically / historically ignorant; that you are clueless and cannot find one single source upon which to rely on for the propagating of your* absolute insanity*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I resort to the fewest fallacies in my arguments.  What lies or fallacies have you found in my arguments?
> 
> None.
> 
> Y'all merely project and claim what y'all are doing on others.
Click to expand...



Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact.   You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.

Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard.  But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> frigidweirdo said:
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos is only here for entertainment. That you haven't put him on the ignore list is the most worrying thing.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> His crap gets old and somebody needs to expose the consummate troll.  None of his crap makes any sense.  He yammers on and on how you can't appeal to his ignorance of the law and he contradicts all known constitutional law on the subject of gun control.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Don't blame me, You are clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As been reportedly proven, the only swinging Richard that is causeless and clueless on this board is *YOU*.  You have served a purpose however.  Most people who do access the links get at the truth.
> 
> At least once a week, either on the threads or in PM, someone asks why I don't just put you on ignore.  It's because you're like Hitler with his observation that if you tell a lie enough times, it will be accepted as truth.  Your shit has *NO BASIS IN FACT*.  You are the only poster who has proclaimed your ignorance of the law and tried to project your weaknesses onto pro - gun posters.
> 
> They accept your capitulation and your admission that you do not have a cause; that you are politically / historically ignorant; that you are clueless and cannot find one single source upon which to rely on for the propagating of your* absolute insanity*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I resort to the fewest fallacies in my arguments.  What lies or fallacies have you found in my arguments?
> 
> None.
> 
> Y'all merely project and claim what y'all are doing on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact.   You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard.  But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
Click to expand...

Maybe in right wing fantasy.  On this board, y'all have nothing but diversion.

The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  Why include the first clause, if what they really meant, was the Only the second clause.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> His crap gets old and somebody needs to expose the consummate troll.  None of his crap makes any sense.  He yammers on and on how you can't appeal to his ignorance of the law and he contradicts all known constitutional law on the subject of gun control.
> 
> 
> 
> Don't blame me, You are clueless and Causeless.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> As been reportedly proven, the only swinging Richard that is causeless and clueless on this board is *YOU*.  You have served a purpose however.  Most people who do access the links get at the truth.
> 
> At least once a week, either on the threads or in PM, someone asks why I don't just put you on ignore.  It's because you're like Hitler with his observation that if you tell a lie enough times, it will be accepted as truth.  Your shit has *NO BASIS IN FACT*.  You are the only poster who has proclaimed your ignorance of the law and tried to project your weaknesses onto pro - gun posters.
> 
> They accept your capitulation and your admission that you do not have a cause; that you are politically / historically ignorant; that you are clueless and cannot find one single source upon which to rely on for the propagating of your* absolute insanity*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I resort to the fewest fallacies in my arguments.  What lies or fallacies have you found in my arguments?
> 
> None.
> 
> Y'all merely project and claim what y'all are doing on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact.   You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard.  But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in right wing fantasy.  On this board, y'all have nothing but diversion.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  Why include the first clause, if what they really meant, was the Only the second clause.
Click to expand...


Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.

Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Don't blame me, You are clueless and Causeless.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> As been reportedly proven, the only swinging Richard that is causeless and clueless on this board is *YOU*.  You have served a purpose however.  Most people who do access the links get at the truth.
> 
> At least once a week, either on the threads or in PM, someone asks why I don't just put you on ignore.  It's because you're like Hitler with his observation that if you tell a lie enough times, it will be accepted as truth.  Your shit has *NO BASIS IN FACT*.  You are the only poster who has proclaimed your ignorance of the law and tried to project your weaknesses onto pro - gun posters.
> 
> They accept your capitulation and your admission that you do not have a cause; that you are politically / historically ignorant; that you are clueless and cannot find one single source upon which to rely on for the propagating of your* absolute insanity*.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> I resort to the fewest fallacies in my arguments.  What lies or fallacies have you found in my arguments?
> 
> None.
> 
> Y'all merely project and claim what y'all are doing on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact.   You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard.  But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in right wing fantasy.  On this board, y'all have nothing but diversion.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  Why include the first clause, if what they really meant, was the Only the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
Click to expand...

No, I am saying I won Because y'all have nothing but fallacy; only nothing repeal is worse than that.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> As been reportedly proven, the only swinging Richard that is causeless and clueless on this board is *YOU*.  You have served a purpose however.  Most people who do access the links get at the truth.
> 
> At least once a week, either on the threads or in PM, someone asks why I don't just put you on ignore.  It's because you're like Hitler with his observation that if you tell a lie enough times, it will be accepted as truth.  Your shit has *NO BASIS IN FACT*.  You are the only poster who has proclaimed your ignorance of the law and tried to project your weaknesses onto pro - gun posters.
> 
> They accept your capitulation and your admission that you do not have a cause; that you are politically / historically ignorant; that you are clueless and cannot find one single source upon which to rely on for the propagating of your* absolute insanity*.
> 
> 
> 
> I resort to the fewest fallacies in my arguments.  What lies or fallacies have you found in my arguments?
> 
> None.
> 
> Y'all merely project and claim what y'all are doing on others.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact.   You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard.  But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in right wing fantasy.  On this board, y'all have nothing but diversion.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  Why include the first clause, if what they really meant, was the Only the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am saying I won Because y'all have nothing but fallacy; only nothing repeal is worse than that.
Click to expand...


Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.

Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> I resort to the fewest fallacies in my arguments.  What lies or fallacies have you found in my arguments?
> 
> None.
> 
> Y'all merely project and claim what y'all are doing on others.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact.   You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard.  But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Maybe in right wing fantasy.  On this board, y'all have nothing but diversion.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  Why include the first clause, if what they really meant, was the Only the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am saying I won Because y'all have nothing but fallacy; only nothing repeal is worse than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
Click to expand...

The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  Why include the first clause, if what they really meant, was the Only the second clause.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact.   You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard.  But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> Maybe in right wing fantasy.  On this board, y'all have nothing but diversion.
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  Why include the first clause, if what they really meant, was the Only the second clause.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> No, I am saying I won Because y'all have nothing but fallacy; only nothing repeal is worse than that.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the Militia.  Well regulated militia of the People are necessary to the security of a free State.  Why include the first clause, if what they really meant, was the Only the second clause.
Click to expand...



That reason has been discussed more than a dozen times on this thread alone.
Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.

Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

Did you know, nobody on the left takes right wingers seriously about the law or economics, or politics.



> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Did you know, nobody on the left takes right wingers seriously about the law or economics, or politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...


I'd say that works both ways.  Since I'm on NEITHER side, your inference is just as wrong as everything else you say.

Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.

Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.

What is the left besides commie lite?


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know, nobody on the left takes right wingers seriously about the law or economics, or politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say that works both ways.  Since I'm on NEITHER side, your inference is just as wrong as everything else you say.
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> What is the left besides commie lite?
Click to expand...

All you have is appeals to ignorance.  I am quoting a State Constitution.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know, nobody on the left takes right wingers seriously about the law or economics, or politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say that works both ways.  Since I'm on NEITHER side, your inference is just as wrong as everything else you say.
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> What is the left besides commie lite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you have is appeals to ignorance.  I am quoting a State Constitution.
Click to expand...


I have quoted several *STATE SUPREME COURT RULINGS* interpreting state constitutions and you've never stipulated to their holdings as they are 180 degrees of what you preach.  

Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.

Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know, nobody on the left takes right wingers seriously about the law or economics, or politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say that works both ways.  Since I'm on NEITHER side, your inference is just as wrong as everything else you say.
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> What is the left besides commie lite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you have is appeals to ignorance.  I am quoting a State Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have quoted several *STATE SUPREME COURT RULINGS* interpreting state constitutions and you've never stipulated to their holdings as they are 180 degrees of what you preach.
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
Click to expand...

so what; this is what I cited:  





> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.



all you have is diversion.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know, nobody on the left takes right wingers seriously about the law or economics, or politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I'd say that works both ways.  Since I'm on NEITHER side, your inference is just as wrong as everything else you say.
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> What is the left besides commie lite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you have is appeals to ignorance.  I am quoting a State Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have quoted several *STATE SUPREME COURT RULINGS* interpreting state constitutions and you've never stipulated to their holdings as they are 180 degrees of what you preach.
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; this is what I cited:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all you have is diversion.
Click to expand...


All you have is absolute B.S.  You've been responded to truthfully.

Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.

Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Did you know, nobody on the left takes right wingers seriously about the law or economics, or politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that works both ways.  Since I'm on NEITHER side, your inference is just as wrong as everything else you say.
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> What is the left besides commie lite?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> All you have is appeals to ignorance.  I am quoting a State Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have quoted several *STATE SUPREME COURT RULINGS* interpreting state constitutions and you've never stipulated to their holdings as they are 180 degrees of what you preach.
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; this is what I cited:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all you have is diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have is absolute B.S.  You've been responded to truthfully.
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong
Click to expand...

Dude, I cited a Constitution.  You don't know what you are talking about, like most of the right wing.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'd say that works both ways.  Since I'm on NEITHER side, your inference is just as wrong as everything else you say.
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> What is the left besides commie lite?
> 
> 
> 
> All you have is appeals to ignorance.  I am quoting a State Constitution.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> I have quoted several *STATE SUPREME COURT RULINGS* interpreting state constitutions and you've never stipulated to their holdings as they are 180 degrees of what you preach.
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; this is what I cited:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all you have is diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have is absolute B.S.  You've been responded to truthfully.
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I cited a Constitution.  You don't know what you are talking about, like most of the right wing.
Click to expand...


*YOU* have no idea what you're talking about.  A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean.  Let me give you a *FREE *lesson in the law. 

This is a quote from a government site:

"_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos.  And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly.  You are wrong, dude.  I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong.  Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos.  I've told you that you're wrong.  If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site.  It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass.  When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid.  If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping.  Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> All you have is appeals to ignorance.  I am quoting a State Constitution.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have quoted several *STATE SUPREME COURT RULINGS* interpreting state constitutions and you've never stipulated to their holdings as they are 180 degrees of what you preach.
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> so what; this is what I cited:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all you have is diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have is absolute B.S.  You've been responded to truthfully.
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I cited a Constitution.  You don't know what you are talking about, like most of the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *YOU* have no idea what you're talking about.  A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean.  Let me give you a *FREE *lesson in the law.
> 
> This is a quote from a government site:
> 
> "_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."
> 
> Comparing Federal & State Courts
> 
> When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos.  And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly.  You are wrong, dude.  I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong.  Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:
> 
> http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
> 
> Now, here's the real deal danielpalos.  I've told you that you're wrong.  If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site.  It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass.  When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid.  If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping.  Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part.
Click to expand...




> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.



You are either, well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have quoted several *STATE SUPREME COURT RULINGS* interpreting state constitutions and you've never stipulated to their holdings as they are 180 degrees of what you preach.
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong.
> 
> 
> 
> so what; this is what I cited:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> all you have is diversion.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> All you have is absolute B.S.  You've been responded to truthfully.
> 
> Your entire premise has been shown to be ridiculous, meaningless, full of fallacies, and has no basis in fact. You're just trying to say you "_won_" by having the last post.
> 
> Your nonsense is not swaying a swinging Richard. But, every sentence you've posted in your own words has proven to be wrong
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Dude, I cited a Constitution.  You don't know what you are talking about, like most of the right wing.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> *YOU* have no idea what you're talking about.  A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean.  Let me give you a *FREE *lesson in the law.
> 
> This is a quote from a government site:
> 
> "_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."
> 
> Comparing Federal & State Courts
> 
> When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos.  And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly.  You are wrong, dude.  I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong.  Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:
> 
> http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
> 
> Now, here's the real deal danielpalos.  I've told you that you're wrong.  If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site.  It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass.  When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid.  If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping.  Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> You are either, well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.
Click to expand...



Within* four minutes *of my last post, danielpalos posted.  I'm going to repeat what I said:

*YOU* have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a *FREE *lesson in the law. 

This is a quote from a government site:

"_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

*All *of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to.  By doing what he was warned *NOT* to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,* danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!*


----------



## danielpalos

Our Second Amendment is a States' right.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment is a States' right.



Still struggling for relevance?  We've accepted your concession of defeat.  Time to get some new lines, danielpalos.


----------



## danielpalos

Not at all. Our Second Amendment is also about  States rights and what is necessary to the security of a free State.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Not at all. Our Second Amendment is also about  States rights and what is necessary to the security of a free State.



We've accepted your concession of defeat. Time to get some new lines, danielpalos.


----------



## danielpalos

Nothing but diversion, right wingers?

The first clause has to mean something.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Nothing but diversion, right wingers?
> 
> The first clause has to mean something.



Irrelevant.  The first clause was explained to you.

We've accepted your concession of defeat. Time to get some new lines, danielpalos


***********************************************************************************************************

*AFTER* danielpalos tapped out, he comes back again as if the last person that posts wins.  Such is the childishness of his posting efforts.  So, once again here is the response to his charge... a response he chose not to read NOR provide a different opinion other than his standard canard that has been refuted and proven wrong.  Let us repeat:

Within* four minutes *of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:

*YOU* have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a *FREE *lesson in the law. 

This is a quote from a government site:

"_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

*All *of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned *NOT* to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,*danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT! (end of that exchange)*

danielpalos tapped out.  He refused to deal with the facts, instead of making the same insulting and idiotic charge.  We will just have to keep repeating the answer he is ignoring.


----------



## danielpalos

The first clause cannot be irrelevant.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> The first clause cannot be irrelevant.



Your nonsensical posts on that point were asked and answered:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

danielpalos the above is a link.  You use your mouse, click on it and read it.

We accept your concession of defeat.


----------



## danielpalos

Only in right wing fantasy can the first clause be, irrelevant.

_There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.--The Federalist Number Forty. _


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Only in right wing fantasy can the first clause be, irrelevant.
> 
> _There are two rules of construction, dictated by plain reason, as well as founded on legal axioms. The one is, that every part of the expression ought, if possible, to be allowed some meaning, and be made to conspire to some common end. The other is, that where the several parts cannot be made to coincide, the less important should give way to the more important part; the means should be sacrificed to the end, rather than the end to the means.--The Federalist Number Forty. _



I'm a little perplexed.  danielpalos keeps bringing up the same argument over and over and over again as if he isn't being responded to.  What more is there to say after he's conceded defeat on his argument?

Let me repeat my applicable post once again.  It fairly answers his illogical post:

Within* four minutes *of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:

*YOU* have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a *FREE *lesson in the law. 

This is a quote from a government site:

"_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

*All *of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned *NOT* to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,*danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!*


----------



## 2aguy

danielpalos said:


> Did you know, nobody on the left takes right wingers seriously about the law or economics, or politics.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
Click to expand...



Let me fix your post....

Original....

Did you know, nobody on the left takes right wingers seriously about the law or economics, or politics.

Now I will fix it....

Did you know, nobody on the left takes the law, economics or politics seriously, they will just do whatever they want till someone makes them stop.....

There...fixed that....it is now actually accurate....


----------



## justinacolmena

danielpalos said:


> Nothing you posted is relevant.
> 
> Natural rights have nothing to do with our Second Amendment.



So... The Second Amendment IS NOT relevant to the right to bear arms, but on the other hand the draconian anti-American anti-Civil-Rights gun control laws passed by Congress under foreign influence, namely

https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/STATUTE-82/pdf/STATUTE-82-Pg1213-2.pdf

https://www.congress.gov/103/bills/hr1025/BILLS-103hr1025enr.pdf
https://www.congress.gov/110/plaws/publ180/PLAW-110publ180.pdf
ARE relevant to "natural rights" so basically anyone with body odor or otherwise _persona non grata_ on some pretext or another in the United States is subject to arbitrary fines and imprisonment "up to" ten years for possessing a firearm....

I think you are overplaying the "natural/native" angle here, because many Native Americans, especially in Alaska, are veterans of the U.S. armed forces and do support the right to bear arms.


----------



## danielpalos

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State. 

The end justifies the means.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> The end justifies the means.



Absolute rubbish that has been addressed repeatedly on this thread.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> The end justifies the means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute rubbish that has been addressed repeatedly on this thread.
Click to expand...

You don't know what you are talking about.

I cited the rules of construction. 

You have nothing but the moral turpitude of willful blindness and that form of appeal to ignorance of the law.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> The end justifies the means.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Absolute rubbish that has been addressed repeatedly on this thread.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> You don't know what you are talking about.
> 
> I cited the rules of construction.
> 
> You have nothing but the moral turpitude of willful blindness and that form of appeal to ignorance of the law.
Click to expand...


You don't know what *YOU'RE* talking about.  When challenged, you cited *NOTHING* and you put up the white flag, signifying that *YOU TAPPED OUT*.  Okay, I'll cut and paste the post you ignored that signified you have *NOTHING but B.S.* behind your posts:


Within* four minutes *of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:

*YOU* have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a *FREE *lesson in the law. 

This is a quote from a government site:

"_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

*All *of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned *NOT* to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,*danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!*


----------



## danielpalos

You have nothing but appeals to ignorance. 

The rules of construction are more valid than your appeal to ignorance.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> You have nothing but appeals to ignorance.
> 
> The rules of construction are more valid than your appeal to ignorance.




Blah, blah, blah,  blah.  YOU NEED SOME NEW MATERIAL.  *NOBODY IS APPEALING TO YOUR IGNORANCE*.

You don't know what *YOU'RE* talking about. When challenged, you cited *NOTHING* and you put up the white flag, signifying that *YOU TAPPED OUT*. Okay, I'll cut and paste the post you ignored that signified you have *NOTHING but B.S.* behind your posts:


Within* four minutes *of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:

*YOU* have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a *FREE *lesson in the law. 

This is a quote from a government site:

"_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

*All *of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned *NOT* to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,*danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!*


----------



## danielpalos

Yes, the right wing has nothing but repeal and that form of ignorance. 

No one is unconnected with the militia, only militia service, well regulated. 

The People are the militia. 

You are either well regulated or not. 

Well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be infringed.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Yes, the right wing has nothing but repeal and that form of ignorance.
> 
> No one is unconnected with the militia, only militia service, well regulated.
> 
> The People are the militia.
> 
> You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People are necessary and shall not be infringed.



Are you STILL babbling on about *nothing*???  I repeat:

I'm a little perplexed. danielpalos keeps bringing up the same argument over and over and over again as if he isn't being responded to. What more is there to say after he's conceded defeat on his argument?

Let me repeat my applicable post once again. It fairly answers his illogical post:

Within* four minutes *of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:

*YOU* have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a *FREE *lesson in the law. 

This is a quote from a government site:

"_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

*All *of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned *NOT* to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,*danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!*
*
Respond to that information and maybe we can move forward.  Otherwise you can keep repeating debunked B.S. and I can respond with the facts exposing what you say.*


----------



## danielpalos

Our Second Amendment declares a States' Right.


----------



## danielpalos

The People are the militia. It says so in State Constitutions.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> The People are the militia. It says so in State Constitutions.



Your point?

"_(1) The Second Amendment protects an *individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia*, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home_." Pp. 2–53.

_*District of Columbia v. Heller*_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)

Do you understand the authority of the United States Supreme Court as the final arbiter of what the Constitution means?  You do realize that above is the actual *HOLDING* in the Heller case, correct?  Do you know what a HOLDING is?

Do you understand that a state, regardless of what "rights" you think they have are subservient to the guarantees of the Bill of Rights?  We're not going to argue this B.S. this week about whether or not states have rights.  You have a constitutionally protected Right to keep and bear Arms unconnected to service in a militia and those Rights, since protected by the Constitution take precedence over any state laws.


----------



## Humorme

I have to keep repeating the same posting until danielpalos answers.  If not, he'll make yet another idiotic statement and another until he is arguing this circular reasoning that individuals don't have Rights, only states do.  It's been debunked a hundred times, but he needs to respond to the post from earlier (repeated below):


Are you STILL babbling on about *nothing*??? I repeat:

I'm a little perplexed. danielpalos keeps bringing up the same argument over and over and over again as if he isn't being responded to. What more is there to say after he's conceded defeat on his argument?

Let me repeat my applicable post once again. It fairly answers his illogical post:

Within* four minutes *of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:

*YOU* have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a *FREE *lesson in the law. 

This is a quote from a government site:

"_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

*All *of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned *NOT* to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,*danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!*
*
Respond to that information and maybe we can move forward. Otherwise you can keep repeating debunked B.S. and I can respond with the facts exposing what you say.*


----------



## danielpalos

Our Second Amendment is a States right.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Our Second Amendment is a States right.



I have to keep repeating the same posting until danielpalos answers. If not, he'll make yet another idiotic statement and another until he is arguing this circular reasoning that individuals don't have Rights, only states do. It's been debunked a hundred times, but he needs to respond to the post from earlier (repeated below):


Are you STILL babbling on about *nothing*??? I repeat:

I'm a little perplexed. danielpalos keeps bringing up the same argument over and over and over again as if he isn't being responded to. What more is there to say after he's conceded defeat on his argument?

Let me repeat my applicable post once again. It fairly answers his illogical post:

Within* four minutes *of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:

*YOU* have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a *FREE *lesson in the law. 

This is a quote from a government site:

"_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

*All *of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned *NOT* to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,*danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!*
*
Respond to that information and maybe we can move forward. Otherwise you can keep repeating debunked B.S. and I can respond with the facts exposing what you say.*


----------



## Dont Taz Me Bro

Humorme said:


> I have to keep repeating the same posting until danielpalos answers.



Actually, you're done.


----------



## Humorme

Dont Taz Me Bro said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> I have to keep repeating the same posting until danielpalos answers.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually, you're done.
Click to expand...


Yep, until danielpalos posts the same nonsense requiring the same response.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is a States right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to keep repeating the same posting until danielpalos answers. If not, he'll make yet another idiotic statement and another until he is arguing this circular reasoning that individuals don't have Rights, only states do. It's been debunked a hundred times, but he needs to respond to the post from earlier (repeated below):
> 
> 
> Are you STILL babbling on about *nothing*??? I repeat:
> 
> I'm a little perplexed. danielpalos keeps bringing up the same argument over and over and over again as if he isn't being responded to. What more is there to say after he's conceded defeat on his argument?
> 
> Let me repeat my applicable post once again. It fairly answers his illogical post:
> 
> Within* four minutes *of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:
> 
> *YOU* have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a *FREE *lesson in the law.
> 
> This is a quote from a government site:
> 
> "_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."
> 
> Comparing Federal & State Courts
> 
> When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:
> 
> http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
> 
> Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)
> 
> *All *of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned *NOT* to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,*danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!
> 
> Respond to that information and maybe we can move forward. Otherwise you can keep repeating debunked B.S. and I can respond with the facts exposing what you say.*
Click to expand...

The People are the militia. 

What is so difficult to understand about that?


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Our Second Amendment is a States right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I have to keep repeating the same posting until danielpalos answers. If not, he'll make yet another idiotic statement and another until he is arguing this circular reasoning that individuals don't have Rights, only states do. It's been debunked a hundred times, but he needs to respond to the post from earlier (repeated below):
> 
> 
> Are you STILL babbling on about *nothing*??? I repeat:
> 
> I'm a little perplexed. danielpalos keeps bringing up the same argument over and over and over again as if he isn't being responded to. What more is there to say after he's conceded defeat on his argument?
> 
> Let me repeat my applicable post once again. It fairly answers his illogical post:
> 
> Within* four minutes *of my last post, danielpalos posted. I'm going to repeat what I said:
> 
> *YOU* have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a *FREE *lesson in the law.
> 
> This is a quote from a government site:
> 
> "_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."
> 
> Comparing Federal & State Courts
> 
> When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:
> 
> http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
> 
> Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)
> 
> *All *of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned *NOT* to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,*danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!
> 
> Respond to that information and maybe we can move forward. Otherwise you can keep repeating debunked B.S. and I can respond with the facts exposing what you say.*
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia.
> 
> What is so difficult to understand about that?
Click to expand...


It's half a position that is your standard fare.  You have yet to answer the real question:

Do people have a Right to keep and bear Arms unconnected to service in a militia?


----------



## danielpalos

Dude, you have nothing but diversion which is a fallacy.

The security of a free State is the End

Well regulated militia of the People is the means.

The unorganized militia of the People, is not.

No one is unconnected with the militia only militia service, well regulated. 

Any questions?


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Dude, you have nothing but diversion which is a fallacy.
> 
> The security of a free State is the End
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People is the means.
> 
> The unorganized militia of the People, is not.
> 
> No one is unconnected with the militia only militia service, well regulated.
> 
> Any questions?




Back to your same old bullshit of making idiotic allegations and accusations.

*YOU* have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a *FREE *lesson in the law.

This is a quote from a government site:

"_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

*All *of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned *NOT* to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,  *danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!

DANIELPALOS READ THE HELLER DECISION  - DANIELPALOS READ THE HELLER DECISION - DANIELPALOS READ THE HELLER DECISION*


----------



## danielpalos

Willful blindness is a moral turpitude and that less moral form of appeal to ignorance of the law. 

No one is unconnected with the militia only militia service, well regulated.

Any questions?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> It's half a position that is your standard fare.  You have yet to answer the real question:
> 
> Do people have a Right to keep and bear Arms unconnected to service in a militia?


People have a right to own a weapon as allowed by law, as per the 1689 EBoR. 
Danielpalos hasn't said otherwise, your inability to understand the English language is what is in question, along with your inane interpretation of historical fact.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Willful blindness is a moral turpitude and that less moral form of appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> No one is unconnected with the militia only militia service, well regulated.
> 
> Any questions?




_The Supreme Court *held*:[44]

(1) The Second Amendment protects an *individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, *and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the *ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms*, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.

*District of Columbia v. Heller*, 554 U.S. 570
_
Do you understand that HOLDING by the United States Supreme Court, danielpalos?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

What in Danielpalos comment doesn't say what you have quoted from wiki?


----------



## Liquid Reigns

Humorme said:


> _The Supreme Court *held*:[44]
> 
> (1) The Second Amendment protects an *individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, *and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the *ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms*, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
> 
> *District of Columbia v. Heller*, 554 U.S. 570
> _
> Do you understand that HOLDING by the United States Supreme Court, danielpalos?


Quoting wiki makes you look completely inept. Those phrases are not in Heller, nor are they even close to being the holding of the case.

Lets look at your 1) phrase, it's nothing but dicta, the phrase "service in a militia" comes up just 3 times in the entire opinion, the first time in section II A as a claim by the respondent, the second time in Section II A c in discussion of the 1689 EBoR, and the third time in Section II D 1 regarding post ratification commentary while discussing prior cases.

How about a), which is really nothing more then who ever wrote the wiki paragraph simply having interpreted from Heller.

And b) is in Section 2 A 3 which simply discussed what the right could do (in the PA III, and in VA, and finally as a US Citizen OCT 1788) prior to the USC.

You haven't presented the holding in Heller, and from what it looks like you don't understand the term to begin with.


----------



## justinacolmena

Humorme said:


> danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!



There was cyanide in the punch bowl.  Someone arranged an automobile "accident." A "hooker" had a syringe in her purse and somebody died of a heroin overdose after "inviting" her into bed with him.  Or a doctor performed unnecessary surgery on a vital organ, with fatal results.

Or someone was stabbed, doused with gasoline and set afire, or beaten to death by a mob. Or diagnosed with "cancer" and fatally treated with a miscalculated dose of radiation therapy.

Or stabbed with a knife, or garroted, or smothered to death with a pillow.

Banning guns prevents us from defending ourselves, but it does nothing to stop murder.


----------



## Humorme

justinacolmena said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was cyanide in the punch bowl.  Someone arranged an automobile "accident." A "hooker" had a syringe in her purse and somebody died of a heroin overdose after "inviting" her into bed with him.  Or a doctor performed unnecessary surgery on a vital organ, with fatal results.
> 
> Or someone was stabbed, doused with gasoline and set afire, or beaten to death by a mob. Or diagnosed with "cancer" and fatally treated with a miscalculated dose of radiation therapy.
> 
> Or stabbed with a knife, or garroted, or smothered to death with a pillow.
> 
> Banning guns prevents us from defending ourselves, but it does nothing to stop murder.
Click to expand...


I have model legislation that* would *do just that.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Willful blindness is a moral turpitude and that less moral form of appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> No one is unconnected with the militia only militia service, well regulated.
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Supreme Court *held*:[44]
> 
> (1) The Second Amendment protects an *individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, *and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the *ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms*, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
> 
> *District of Columbia v. Heller*, 554 U.S. 570
> _
> Do you understand that HOLDING by the United States Supreme Court, danielpalos?
Click to expand...


An appeal to ignorance. The right wing always goes for if there is enough socialism on a national basis. 

No one is unconnected with the militia, only militia service well regulated. 

This is a States right, secured by our Second Amendment:

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Willful blindness is a moral turpitude and that less moral form of appeal to ignorance of the law.
> 
> No one is unconnected with the militia only militia service, well regulated.
> 
> Any questions?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> _The Supreme Court *held*:[44]
> 
> (1) The Second Amendment protects an *individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, *and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
> (a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
> (b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the *ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms*, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
> 
> *District of Columbia v. Heller*, 554 U.S. 570
> _
> Do you understand that HOLDING by the United States Supreme Court, danielpalos?
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> An appeal to ignorance. The right wing always goes for if there is enough socialism on a national basis.
> 
> No one is unconnected with the militia, only militia service well regulated.
> 
> This is a States right, secured by our Second Amendment:
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
Click to expand...



Are you STILL babbling on about *nothing*??? I repeat:

I'm a little perplexed. danielpalos keeps bringing up the same argument over and over and over again as if he isn't being responded to. What more is there to say after he's conceded defeat on his argument?

Let me repeat my applicable post once again. It fairly answers his illogical post:

*YOU* have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a *FREE *lesson in the law. 

This is a quote from a government site:

"_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

*All *of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned *NOT* to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,*danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!*
*
Respond to that information and maybe we can move forward. Otherwise you can keep repeating debunked B.S. and I can respond with the facts exposing what you say.*


----------



## danielpalos

Nothing but diversion?

You have to address my arguments not merely recite propaganda and rhetoric. 

The People = The Militia.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Nothing but diversion?
> 
> You have to address my arguments not merely recite propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> The People = The Militia.



Your idiotic arguments have been addressed, proven wrong and you've chose to repeat yourself several hundred times.  But you're wrong and I'm just committed to my position as you are to yours.

You have ignored the law, the Supreme Court, and you denigrate everybody that don't understand the world according to danielpalos.  You're full of shit and you're wrong.

"_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

justinacolmena said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was cyanide in the punch bowl.  Someone arranged an automobile "accident." A "hooker" had a syringe in her purse and somebody died of a heroin overdose after "inviting" her into bed with him.  Or a doctor performed unnecessary surgery on a vital organ, with fatal results.
> 
> Or someone was stabbed, doused with gasoline and set afire, or beaten to death by a mob. Or diagnosed with "cancer" and fatally treated with a miscalculated dose of radiation therapy.
> 
> Or stabbed with a knife, or garroted, or smothered to death with a pillow.
> 
> Banning guns prevents us from defending ourselves, but it does nothing to stop murder.
Click to expand...

Wrong.

No one is advocating ‘banning’ guns.

And the thread premise is just as wrong now as it was last October.

A given firearm regulatory measure does not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right until the Supreme Court rules that it does.

The regulatory measures proposed by Democrats are perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, and have been consistently upheld by the courts.

If Democrats sought to enact firearm regulatory measures the Supreme Court has struck down as un-Constitutional, then and only then will they be attempting to ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.

Opposition to bans on semi-automatic rifles such as the AR 15 should be opposed because they won’t have the desired effect, having nothing to do with their constitutionality. For example, less than 2 percent of violent gun crimes are committed with long guns, even fewer with semi-automatic rifles.


----------



## Humorme

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> There was cyanide in the punch bowl.  Someone arranged an automobile "accident." A "hooker" had a syringe in her purse and somebody died of a heroin overdose after "inviting" her into bed with him.  Or a doctor performed unnecessary surgery on a vital organ, with fatal results.
> 
> Or someone was stabbed, doused with gasoline and set afire, or beaten to death by a mob. Or diagnosed with "cancer" and fatally treated with a miscalculated dose of radiation therapy.
> 
> Or stabbed with a knife, or garroted, or smothered to death with a pillow.
> 
> Banning guns prevents us from defending ourselves, but it does nothing to stop murder.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Wrong.
> 
> No one is advocating ‘banning’ guns.
> 
> And the thread premise is just as wrong now as it was last October.
> 
> A given firearm regulatory measure does not ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right until the Supreme Court rules that it does.
> 
> The regulatory measures proposed by Democrats are perfectly consistent with current Second Amendment jurisprudence, and have been consistently upheld by the courts.
> 
> If Democrats sought to enact firearm regulatory measures the Supreme Court has struck down as un-Constitutional, then and only then will they be attempting to ‘infringe’ on the Second Amendment right.
> 
> Opposition to bans on semi-automatic rifles such as the AR 15 should be opposed because they won’t have the desired effect, having nothing to do with their constitutionality. For example, less than 2 percent of violent gun crimes are committed with long guns, even fewer with semi-automatic rifles.
Click to expand...



“_Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birth-right of an American… [T]he unlimited power of the sword is* not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people*_.”,  Tench Coxe Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Nothing but diversion?
> 
> You have to address my arguments not merely recite propaganda and rhetoric.
> 
> The People = The Militia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Your idiotic arguments have been addressed, proven wrong and you've chose to repeat yourself several hundred times.  But you're wrong and I'm just committed to my position as you are to yours.
> 
> You have ignored the law, the Supreme Court, and you denigrate everybody that don't understand the world according to danielpalos.  You're full of shit and you're wrong.
> 
> "_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."
> 
> Comparing Federal & State Courts
> 
> When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:
> 
> http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm
Click to expand...

The People are the militia. 

Our Second Amendment is a States right.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

As anyone interested in the subject should know, the Supreme Court this week refused to grant cert to a case challenging the constitutionality of Maryland’s Firearm Safety Act, which places comprehensive restrictions on semi-automatic rifles such as the AR 15, _Kolbe v. Hogan. _

The Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the Act as Constitutional, not violating the Second Amendment.

The High Court is likely waiting for a Federal appeals court to strike down a law similar to the SAFE Act or the FSA, as was the case when the Sixth Circuit upheld state measures prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying, where other appellate courts had invalidated such prohibitions.


----------



## justinacolmena

danielpalos said:


> The People are the militia.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is a States right.



"the right of the people ..."  Are you totally illiterate?


----------



## justinacolmena

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Sixth Circuit upheld state measures prohibiting same-sex couples from marrying


*YAWN* Regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity or others' opinions, I think will do just fine on this score if I have enough guns and ammunition to deter circuit court judges and other unwanted guests from crashing my wedding.


----------



## danielpalos

justinacolmena said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the militia.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is a States right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the right of the people ..."  Are you totally illiterate?
Click to expand...

The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.


----------



## Humorme

justinacolmena said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the militia.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is a States right.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "the right of the people ..."  Are you totally illiterate?
Click to expand...


She *IS* that illiterate. 

Despite scores of links to English professors to explain the language; lawyers and judges to explain the law; words of the founding fathers to explain the *INTENT*, along with all kinds of scholars to explain the history, danielpalos has her own concept and seeks to force feed down the throats of America. 

We cannot afford to let her B.S. lies go unchallenged.  More information that counters the board troll with:

2nd Amendment: Original Meaning and Purpose

Second Amendment Original Intent


----------



## justinacolmena

danielpalos said:


> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.



"Well regulated" does not refer to the length of your hair or to your gender.

FACT #1. The most important prerequisite for a "well-regulated Militia" is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed.

FACT #2. The Brady Bill list of "mentally ill persons" forced to wear a black triangle record for the rest of their lives does not make for a well-regulated militia.

FACT #3. The legislators and Congressmen who voted for such gun control bills -- and their votes are a matter of public record -- are more suicidal than the persons they single out on "the list" to be prohibited from possessing firearms and targeted for America's modern-day white nationalist // national socialist // social Darwinist Holocaust.  Adolf Hitler hanged himself on piano wire. So may these Nazis.


----------



## danielpalos

justinacolmena said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Well regulated" does not refer to the length of your hair or to your gender.
> 
> FACT #1. The most important prerequisite for a "well-regulated Militia" is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
> 
> FACT #2. The Brady Bill list of "mentally ill persons" forced to wear a black triangle record for the rest of their lives does not make for a well-regulated militia.
> 
> FACT #3. The legislators and Congressmen who voted for such gun control bills -- and their votes are a matter of public record -- are more suicidal than the persons they single out on "the list" to be prohibited from possessing firearms and targeted for America's modern-day white nationalist // national socialist // social Darwinist Holocaust.  Adolf Hitler hanged himself on piano wire. So may these Nazis.
Click to expand...

The People = The Militia.

You are either well regulated or not. 

Well regulated must be prescribed by Congress for the militia of the United States.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Well regulated" does not refer to the length of your hair or to your gender.
> 
> FACT #1. The most important prerequisite for a "well-regulated Militia" is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
> 
> FACT #2. The Brady Bill list of "mentally ill persons" forced to wear a black triangle record for the rest of their lives does not make for a well-regulated militia.
> 
> FACT #3. The legislators and Congressmen who voted for such gun control bills -- and their votes are a matter of public record -- are more suicidal than the persons they single out on "the list" to be prohibited from possessing firearms and targeted for America's modern-day white nationalist // national socialist // social Darwinist Holocaust.  Adolf Hitler hanged himself on piano wire. So may these Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People = The Militia.
> 
> You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> Well regulated must be prescribed by Congress for the militia of the United States.
Click to expand...


Despite scores of links to English professors to explain the language; lawyers and judges to explain the law; words of the founding fathers to explain the *INTENT*, along with all kinds of scholars to explain the history, danielpalos has her own concept and seeks to force feed down the throats of America. 

We cannot afford to let her B.S. lies go unchallenged. More information that counters the board troll with:

2nd Amendment: Original Meaning and Purpose

Second Amendment Original Intent


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Well regulated" does not refer to the length of your hair or to your gender.
> 
> FACT #1. The most important prerequisite for a "well-regulated Militia" is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
> 
> FACT #2. The Brady Bill list of "mentally ill persons" forced to wear a black triangle record for the rest of their lives does not make for a well-regulated militia.
> 
> FACT #3. The legislators and Congressmen who voted for such gun control bills -- and their votes are a matter of public record -- are more suicidal than the persons they single out on "the list" to be prohibited from possessing firearms and targeted for America's modern-day white nationalist // national socialist // social Darwinist Holocaust.  Adolf Hitler hanged himself on piano wire. So may these Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People = The Militia.
> 
> You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> Well regulated must be prescribed by Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite scores of links to English professors to explain the language; lawyers and judges to explain the law; words of the founding fathers to explain the *INTENT*, along with all kinds of scholars to explain the history, danielpalos has her own concept and seeks to force feed down the throats of America.
> 
> We cannot afford to let her B.S. lies go unchallenged. More information that counters the board troll with:
> 
> 2nd Amendment: Original Meaning and Purpose
> 
> Second Amendment Original Intent
Click to expand...

It says I am right even though I am on the left.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> justinacolmena said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> "Well regulated" does not refer to the length of your hair or to your gender.
> 
> FACT #1. The most important prerequisite for a "well-regulated Militia" is that the right of the people to keep and bear arms not be infringed.
> 
> FACT #2. The Brady Bill list of "mentally ill persons" forced to wear a black triangle record for the rest of their lives does not make for a well-regulated militia.
> 
> FACT #3. The legislators and Congressmen who voted for such gun control bills -- and their votes are a matter of public record -- are more suicidal than the persons they single out on "the list" to be prohibited from possessing firearms and targeted for America's modern-day white nationalist // national socialist // social Darwinist Holocaust.  Adolf Hitler hanged himself on piano wire. So may these Nazis.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People = The Militia.
> 
> You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> Well regulated must be prescribed by Congress for the militia of the United States.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Despite scores of links to English professors to explain the language; lawyers and judges to explain the law; words of the founding fathers to explain the *INTENT*, along with all kinds of scholars to explain the history, danielpalos has her own concept and seeks to force feed down the throats of America.
> 
> We cannot afford to let her B.S. lies go unchallenged. More information that counters the board troll with:
> 
> 2nd Amendment: Original Meaning and Purpose
> 
> Second Amendment Original Intent
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> It says I am right even though I am on the left.
Click to expand...


"_It_" nothing.  The Second Amendment itself testifies against you 100 percent.

Despite scores of links to English professors to explain the language; lawyers and judges to explain the law; words of the founding fathers to explain the *INTENT*, along with all kinds of scholars to explain the history, danielpalos has her own concept and seeks to force feed down the throats of America.

We cannot afford to let her B.S. lies go unchallenged. More information that counters the board troll with:

Original Intent:  The 2ND Amendment


2nd Amendment: Original Meaning and Purpose


----------



## danielpalos

Dude, our Second Amendment cannot do what is claimed by the right wing, because it would have to be a Constitution unto itself.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Dude, our Second Amendment cannot do what is claimed by the right wing, because it would have to be a Constitution unto itself.



The Second Amendment does nothing in and of itself.  The Second Amendment is a guarantee that government will not infringe upon the *Right of the People to keep and bear Arms*.  

The whole Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government NOT the people.

"_The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals .... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of_."
_*-- Albert Gallatin*, New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789_
_
"The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers." _
*-- Thomas Jefferson*_, _Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, our Second Amendment cannot do what is claimed by the right wing, because it would have to be a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment does nothing in and of itself.  The Second Amendment is a guarantee that government will not infringe upon the *Right of the People to keep and bear Arms*.
> 
> The whole Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government NOT the people.
> 
> "_The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals .... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of_."
> _*-- Albert Gallatin*, New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
> 
> "The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers." _
> *-- Thomas Jefferson*_, _Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors
Click to expand...

The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, our Second Amendment cannot do what is claimed by the right wing, because it would have to be a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment does nothing in and of itself.  The Second Amendment is a guarantee that government will not infringe upon the *Right of the People to keep and bear Arms*.
> 
> The whole Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government NOT the people.
> 
> "_The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals .... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of_."
> _*-- Albert Gallatin*, New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
> 
> "The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers." _
> *-- Thomas Jefferson*_, _Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.
Click to expand...


What's your point?  You keep stating the obvious.  Why don't you address the points you're *wrong* on?  

You have an* individual Right* to keep and bear Arms unconnected to service in a militia.


----------



## justinacolmena

The Second Amendment is about bearing Arms.  It is not about cutting hair.


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, our Second Amendment cannot do what is claimed by the right wing, because it would have to be a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment does nothing in and of itself.  The Second Amendment is a guarantee that government will not infringe upon the *Right of the People to keep and bear Arms*.
> 
> The whole Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government NOT the people.
> 
> "_The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals .... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of_."
> _*-- Albert Gallatin*, New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
> 
> "The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers." _
> *-- Thomas Jefferson*_, _Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point?  You keep stating the obvious.  Why don't you address the points you're *wrong* on?
> 
> You have an* individual Right* to keep and bear Arms unconnected to service in a militia.
Click to expand...

Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary and may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, our Second Amendment cannot do what is claimed by the right wing, because it would have to be a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment does nothing in and of itself.  The Second Amendment is a guarantee that government will not infringe upon the *Right of the People to keep and bear Arms*.
> 
> The whole Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government NOT the people.
> 
> "_The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals .... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of_."
> _*-- Albert Gallatin*, New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
> 
> "The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers." _
> *-- Thomas Jefferson*_, _Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point?  You keep stating the obvious.  Why don't you address the points you're *wrong* on?
> 
> You have an* individual Right* to keep and bear Arms unconnected to service in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary and may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.
Click to expand...


 No, it certainly may not be.  Why don't you take a little time to educate yourself instead of embarrassing yourself with this seven day a week routine of spouting shit that you have provided *ZERO *basis for?

Are you really that starved for attention?

Let's educate you with the Supreme Court's most recent ruling.  This is the bottom line:

"_Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. filed a concurring opinion in which he reiterated the importance of *access to self-defense and the rights afforded by the Second Amendment.* Justice Clarence Thomas joined in the concurring opinion_."   

{{meta.pageTitle}}


----------



## danielpalos

Humorme said:


> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude, our Second Amendment cannot do what is claimed by the right wing, because it would have to be a Constitution unto itself.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment does nothing in and of itself.  The Second Amendment is a guarantee that government will not infringe upon the *Right of the People to keep and bear Arms*.
> 
> The whole Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government NOT the people.
> 
> "_The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals .... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of_."
> _*-- Albert Gallatin*, New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
> 
> "The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers." _
> *-- Thomas Jefferson*_, _Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point?  You keep stating the obvious.  Why don't you address the points you're *wrong* on?
> 
> You have an* individual Right* to keep and bear Arms unconnected to service in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary and may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it certainly may not be.  Why don't you take a little time to educate yourself instead of embarrassing yourself with this seven day a week routine of spouting shit that you have provided *ZERO *basis for?
> 
> Are you really that starved for attention?
> 
> Let's educate you with the Supreme Court's most recent ruling.  This is the bottom line:
> 
> "_Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. filed a concurring opinion in which he reiterated the importance of *access to self-defense and the rights afforded by the Second Amendment.* Justice Clarence Thomas joined in the concurring opinion_."
> 
> {{meta.pageTitle}}
Click to expand...

Projecting much? The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.

Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, that makes it a States right, not an Individual right.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> danielpalos said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Humorme said:
> 
> 
> 
> The Second Amendment does nothing in and of itself.  The Second Amendment is a guarantee that government will not infringe upon the *Right of the People to keep and bear Arms*.
> 
> The whole Bill of Rights is a limitation on the government NOT the people.
> 
> "_The whole of the Bill (of Rights) is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals .... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has a right to deprive them of_."
> _*-- Albert Gallatin*, New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789
> 
> "The greatest [calamity] which could befall [us would be] submission to a government of unlimited powers." _
> *-- Thomas Jefferson*_, _Declaration and Protest of Virginia, 1825. The Writings of Thomas Jefferson, (Memorial Edition) Lipscomb and Bergh, editors
> 
> 
> 
> The People are the militia. Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> What's your point?  You keep stating the obvious.  Why don't you address the points you're *wrong* on?
> 
> You have an* individual Right* to keep and bear Arms unconnected to service in a militia.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Well regulated militia of the People are declared Necessary and may not be Infringed, the unorganized militia may be infringed.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> No, it certainly may not be.  Why don't you take a little time to educate yourself instead of embarrassing yourself with this seven day a week routine of spouting shit that you have provided *ZERO *basis for?
> 
> Are you really that starved for attention?
> 
> Let's educate you with the Supreme Court's most recent ruling.  This is the bottom line:
> 
> "_Justice Samuel A. Alito, Jr. filed a concurring opinion in which he reiterated the importance of *access to self-defense and the rights afforded by the Second Amendment.* Justice Clarence Thomas joined in the concurring opinion_."
> 
> {{meta.pageTitle}}
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Projecting much? The People are the militia. You are either well regulated or not.
> 
> Our Second Amendment is about what is necessary to the security of a free State, that makes it a States right, not an Individual right.
Click to expand...



*YOU* are the only one projecting.  So, let's see what this term "_well regulated"_ really means, danielpalos:

"_(Those) who are trying to read the Second Amendment out of the Constitution by claiming it's not an individual right (are) courting disaster by encouraging others to use the same means to eliminate portions of the Constitution they don't like_."

-- Alan Dershowitz, Harvard Law School

"_The best we can hope for concerning the *people at large* is that they be properly armed_."

 Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist Papers at 184-188

"_Americans have the right and advantage of being armed - unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms_."

 James Madison, The Federalist Papers

"_No kingdom can be secured otherwise than by arming the people. The possession of arms is the distinction between a freeman and a slave_."

 "Political Disquisitions", a British republican tract of 1774-1775

"_Are we at last brought to such a humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our own defence? Where is the difference between having *our arms in our own possession and under our own direction*, and having them under the management of Congress? If our defence be the *real* object of having those arms, in whose hands can they be trusted with more propriety, or equal safety to us, as in our own hands?_"

Patrick Henry, speech of June 9 1788

"_The great object is, that every man be armed. [...] *Every one who is able may have a gun*_."

Patrick Henry, speech of June 14 1788

"_That the said Constitution* shall never be construed *to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United states who are peaceable citizens from keeping *their own arms*_..."

-- Samuel Adams, in "Phila. Independent Gazetteer", August 20, 1789

"_The conclusion is thus inescapable that the history, concept, and wording of the second amendment to the Constitution of the United States, as well as its interpretation by every major commentator and court in the first half-century after its ratification, indicates that *what is protected is an individual right of a private citizen to own and carry firearms in a peaceful manner*_."

-- Report of the Subcommittee On The Constitution of the Committee On The Judiciary, United States Senate, 97th Congress, second session (February, 1982), SuDoc# Y4.J 89/2: Ar 5/5

"_Boys who own legal firearms have much lower rates of delinquency and drug use and are even slightly less delinquent than nonowners of guns_."

-- U.S. Department of Justice, National Institute of Justice, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention, NCJ-143454, "Urban Delinquency and Substance Abuse," August 1995.

"_Historical examination of the right to bear arms, from English antecedents to the drafting of the Second Amendment, bears proof that the right to bear arms has consistently been, and should still be, construed as an individual right_."

 U.S. District Judge Sam Cummings, in re U.S. vs Emerson (1999)

We already know the response by danielpalos.  The facts are logical fallacies and *ONLY *danielpalos has the understanding to prove gun owners wrong by reciting his usual canard.  Can you day delusional?


----------



## danielpalos

Right wing fantasy is all you have. 

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
_
It is a States right, secured by our Second Amendment.

The People are the militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.

The context is fixed as that standard by the first clause.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Right wing fantasy is all you have.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.
> _
> It is a States right, secured by our Second Amendment.
> 
> The People are the militia. You are either well regulated and necessary or unorganized and unnecessary.
> 
> The context is fixed as that standard by the first clause.



Yeah  right, danielpalos... I fantasized all of that.  You are a fucking idiot.

*YOU* have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a *FREE *lesson in the law.

This is a quote from a government site:

"_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 % proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

*All *of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned *NOT* to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,*danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!*


----------



## danielpalos

Which part actually refutes Anything I have written?

Please cite my argument and your rebuttal.

The People are the militia.

The context is, what is necessary to the security of a free State. 

The People are either well regulated or unorganized. 

There is no other option.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Which part actually refutes Anything I have written?
> 
> Please cite my argument and your rebuttal.
> 
> The People are the militia.
> 
> The context is, what is necessary to the security of a free State.
> 
> The People are either well regulated or unorganized.
> 
> There is no other option.



NOTHING YOU JUST SAID HAS SHIT TO DO WITH WHAT YOU'VE BEEN ARGUING ABOUT.

*YOU* have no idea what you're talking about. A Constitution means what the courts interpret them to mean. Let me give you a *FREE *lesson in the law.

This is a quote from a government site:

"_State courts are the final arbiters of state laws and constitutions_."

Comparing Federal & State Courts

When state courts interpret the law, it is far more authoritative and binding than the mad ravings of danielpalos. And the courts have said you are wrong and I've cited their rulings and holdings repeatedly. You are wrong, dude. I'm also going to leave you a link that will prove, beyond any question - beyond any shadow of a doubt that you are wrong. Let's go beyond the legal experts and get a professional wordsmith to explain it to you:

http://www.constitution.org/2ll/schol/2amd_grammar.htm

Now, here's the real deal danielpalos. I've told you that you're wrong. If you come back here today everybody will understand you did not access that site. It will be 100 % proof positive that you are talking out your ass. When you don't read it and other posters do, it's going to make you look really stupid. If you can prove the guy wrong, get to popping. Otherwise, your standard canard will be an admission of defeat on your part. (End of previous post)

*All *of danielpalos fallacies, lies, misrepresentations, inaccurate interpretations, and bullshit have been responded to. By doing what he was warned *NOT* to do before witnessing his pet arguments dismantled,*danilepalos HAS THROWN IN THE TOWEL AND CONCEDED DEFEAT!*
*
HERE IS AN ABSOLUTE LIE THAT DANIELPALOS JUST POSTED:
*
_"The People are either well regulated or unorganized_."  

The people have an *individual Right* to keep and bear Arms.  So, if they can get a firearm when it's needed, they are "_well regulated_" as per the intent of the founding fathers (see above quotes.) 

Nothing in American jurisprudence, history or the standing precedents of our law supports danielpalos self proclaimed  superior understanding.  If you disagree with him, his standard canard is to say moronic and silly shit accusing you of fallacies.  Next he will tell us that those founders are no more real than Santa Claus.  He don't even know what a fallacy is.


----------



## danielpalos

The unorganized militia may be infringed by the well regulated militias of a State or the Union,when necessary for security.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> The unorganized militia may be infringed by the well regulated militias of a State or the Union,when necessary for security.



No, it most certainly may not be infringed.  You have NO CITES to back your claim.

 NOTES TO DANIELPALOS:



1) Remove head from ass



2) Access links



3) Refrain from posting until you’ve read such links



4) Using a dictionary, look up the word fallacy



5) Explain to *yourself* how facts are fallacies



6) Then, and only then, bother responding to this message.



This is a discussion board. You don’t need to be a rodent on a treadmill. You can do this. Here are the links:





Comparing Federal & State Courts



The Unabridged Second Amendment


----------



## danielpalos

Nothing refutes what I am saying. 

You have to be specific, not just full of fallacy.


----------



## Humorme

danielpalos said:


> Nothing refutes what I am saying.
> 
> You have to be specific, not just full of fallacy.



You aren't even reading these posts.  Hell Dude, we can play your little game all day long:

No, it most certainly may not be infringed. You have NO CITES to back your claim.

NOTES TO DANIELPALOS:



1) Remove head from ass



2) Access links



3) Refrain from posting until you’ve read such links



4) Using a dictionary, look up the word fallacy



5) Explain to *yourself* how facts are fallacies



6) Then, and only then, bother responding to this message.



This is a discussion board. You don’t need to be a rodent on a treadmill. You can do this. Here are the links:





Comparing Federal & State Courts



The Unabridged Second Amendment


----------



## Humorme

Your nonsensical cow dung has been asked and answered.  If you'd read the links, you could see your wishful thinking has been laid to rest.  Do you need help understanding how to access links?

NOTES TO DANIELPALOS:



1) Remove head from ass



2) Access links



3) Refrain from posting until you’ve read such links



4) Using a dictionary, look up the word fallacy



5) Explain to *yourself* how facts are fallacies



6) Then, and only then, bother responding to this message.



This is a discussion board. You don’t need to be a rodent on a treadmill. You can do this. Here are the links:





Comparing Federal & State Courts



The Unabridged Second Amendment


----------



## danielpalos

You have nothing but diversion. 

Well regulated militias of the United States infringed the right to keep and bear arms, by the unorganized militias of the South. 

There are no Individual rights in our Second Amendment.


----------



## flacaltenn

*This thread is very tired. Needs some rest. Wasn't going anywhere. And that's when folks get into trouble. Closed.. *


----------

