2a Rewrite? Sounds like an abortion amendment.

[Captain Caveman]

1. Nobody proved ANYTHING wrong, so get that shit the fuck outta here.
2. Would it be appropriate for me to go to Canada and start demanding a bunch of shit?
3. I was born here. This is my home. If you want different, you should stay where you are or go to a better place.
4. Fuck you.

If you don't like it, go home, if you don't like it, go home, if you don't like it, go home

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

If you don't like it, go home, if you don't like it, go home, if you don't like it, go home

Yep.

Now FUCK OFF

 

[cnm]

You're not an American, so FUCK OFF!!!

I want to learn about your tradition of individual freedom.

 

[cnm]

I wouldn't expect a Brit to listen to any American who tells them to give up their monarchy and replace subject with citizens.

Ignorant and boring.

Types of British nationality

The different types of British nationality explained - British citizen, British overseas territories citizen, British overseas citizen, British subject, British national (overseas), British protected person

www.gov.uk

 

[JustAGuy1]

This fails as a strawman fallacy.

The thread premise is a ridiculous lie.

Well you are an idiot so there is that.

 

[cnm]

The day I go to another country and try to tell them how to live their lives is the day you or cmn can talk.

It's almost as though your actual recorded history doesn't really exist.


Oh that's right.



It's all CRT unt verboten.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Well you are an idiot so there is that.

A strawman fallacy is where a lie is contrived about one’s opponent, in this case the idiotic lie that anyone seeks to ‘rewrite,’ ‘scrap,’ or otherwise ‘undermine’ the Second Amendment.

Then the lie is attacked by the creator of the lie claiming ‘victory.’

There is no nefarious plot to disarm Americans – this sort of moronic sophistry and demagoguery is typical of the dishonest, reprehensible right.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There is no nefarious plot to disarm Americans – this sort of moronic sophistry and demagoguery is typical of the dishonest, reprehensible right.

This is only true if the Democrats who promise to do this are lying.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

It's almost as though your actual recorded history doesn't really exist.


Oh that's right.



It's all CRT unt verboten.

Don't lay the military/industrial complex war crimes on me. I, personally, have never gone to another country with the intent of telling them how to live their lives.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

A strawman fallacy is where a lie is contrived about one’s opponent, in this case the idiotic lie that anyone seeks to ‘rewrite,’ ‘scrap,’ or otherwise ‘undermine’ the Second Amendment.

Then the lie is attacked by the creator of the lie claiming ‘victory.’

There is no nefarious plot to disarm Americans – this sort of moronic sophistry and demagoguery is typical of the dishonest, reprehensible right.

Then, let us have machine guns.

Otherwise, fuck you.

 

[Open Bolt]

This is really funny coming from a nation whose economic base was built on chattel slavery: where the 2a was written to allow the slave states to have the ability to put down slave rebellions without recourse to a federal govt suspected of a lack of sympathy.

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment was written to prevent tyranny.

The tyrannical government in this case was a federal government suspected of a lack of sympathy to the slave states' concerns over slave uprisings.
The Crackers wanted to be sure they could put down rebellions themselves. In freedom's name of course.

That is incorrect. What our Founding Fathers feared was another King James II.

Absolutely not. We have them under reasonable control. For instance I don't think you'd be able to bring any handguns or military style semi automatic rifles here. You're welcome to all the licit long guns you'd like, no limit.

There is no such thing as a military-style semi-automatic rifle.

Military-style rifles are full-auto or burst-fire.

 

[Open Bolt]

There is no nefarious plot to disarm Americans

Yes there is. Progressives just lie about their intentions.

No one seeks to ‘rewrite’ the Second Amendment, no one seeks to ‘scrap’ the Second Amendment.

Yes they do. Progressives hate the Second Amendment because it stands in the way of their gun ban agenda. They are furious over their inability to abolish it.

 

[Pete7469]

That is incorrect. The Second Amendment was written to prevent tyranny.

That is incorrect. What our Founding Fathers feared was another King James II.

There is no such thing as a military-style semi-automatic rifle.

Military-style rifles are full-auto or burst-fire.

I would argue That the 1st Amendment was written to prevent tyranny. The freedom to speak out, organize, protest, publish editorials, expose corruption, and petition or speak truth to power in front of interested people is what is supposed to prevent tyranny.

We live in a reality where the media that is supposed to do these things instead promotes tyranny, indoctrinates people, spreads agitprop, suppresses dissent and manipulates the public into accepting tyranny through fear.

You're correct that the Founders feared another despotic ruler, and I don't know if they could have foreseen the dystopian horrors that collectivist leftwing sociopaths have wrought in the last 110 years or they would have added amendments that forbade the federal government from establishing any new form of tax, or spending more than it took in. They may have banned the federal government from establishing any sort of uniformed armed law enforcement.

Let's face it, M-Forgeries and "AR-15's" along with "AK Style" rifles are "military-style semi-automatic rifles" and most bedwetting leftist tumors are terrified of them. That said they're no more of an "assault weapon" than a large rock in a long tube sock when an aggressor deliberately hits a peaceful citizen with it.

The M-14, which in my opinion should have been the weapon we retained until the AR10 was fully tested and perfected was limited deliberately to be semi-auto even though attempts were made to make it full auto. The military issued semi-autos because full auto or "burst" was a waste of ammo. The problem is that the bed wetters will point to 1903 bolt action rifles, and therefore ALL "Bolt Action" Rifles as "Sniper Rifles" if they're allowed to cross that hurdle.

These are collectivist sociopaths we're dealing with. Not "people" who want to create a "safer" world with less crime. Otherwise Jussie Smolete would have already been fucked to death in a Chicago jail, thousands of asswipes who dye their hair with lime kool aid would be facing long prison sentences and Trump would be welcoming Ukraine into NATO while China recognized Taiwan as an independent country.

 

[Open Bolt]

Let's face it, M-Forgeries and "AR-15's" along with "AK Style" rifles are "military-style semi-automatic rifles" and most bedwetting leftist tumors are terrified of them.

I do not accept the existence of any such category. I will only apply the term "military-style" to guns that are full-auto or burst-fire (and therefore were all but banned some 88 years ago).

The problem is that the bed wetters will point to 1903 bolt action rifles, and therefore ALL "Bolt Action" Rifles as "Sniper Rifles" if they're allowed to cross that hurdle.

I do not intend to allow them to ever cross that hurdle. I am content to fight about the meaning of terms like "assault weapon" and "military style" until the end of time.

For what it's worth, we are likely to see Strict Scrutiny applied to the Second Amendment this summer. Once that happens, all these unconstitutional laws are doomed. Or at least most of them are.

 

[2aguy]

I would argue That the 1st Amendment was written to prevent tyranny. The freedom to speak out, organize, protest, publish editorials, expose corruption, and petition or speak truth to power in front of interested people is what is supposed to prevent tyranny.

We live in a reality where the media that is supposed to do these things instead promotes tyranny, indoctrinates people, spreads agitprop, suppresses dissent and manipulates the public into accepting tyranny through fear.

You're correct that the Founders feared another despotic ruler, and I don't know if they could have foreseen the dystopian horrors that collectivist leftwing sociopaths have wrought in the last 110 years or they would have added amendments that forbade the federal government from establishing any new form of tax, or spending more than it took in. They may have banned the federal government from establishing any sort of uniformed armed law enforcement.

Let's face it, M-Forgeries and "AR-15's" along with "AK Style" rifles are "military-style semi-automatic rifles" and most bedwetting leftist tumors are terrified of them. That said they're no more of an "assault weapon" than a large rock in a long tube sock when an aggressor deliberately hits a peaceful citizen with it.

The M-14, which in my opinion should have been the weapon we retained until the AR10 was fully tested and perfected was limited deliberately to be semi-auto even though attempts were made to make it full auto. The military issued semi-autos because full auto or "burst" was a waste of ammo. The problem is that the bed wetters will point to 1903 bolt action rifles, and therefore ALL "Bolt Action" Rifles as "Sniper Rifles" if they're allowed to cross that hurdle.

These are collectivist sociopaths we're dealing with. Not "people" who want to create a "safer" world with less crime. Otherwise Jussie Smolete would have already been fucked to death in a Chicago jail, thousands of asswipes who dye their hair with lime kool aid would be facing long prison sentences and Trump would be welcoming Ukraine into NATO while China recognized Taiwan as an independent country.

Yep.......when they say they want to ban "Military weapons," they are looking at the deer hunting rifle...a rifle in current use by Militaries around the world.....also, they are looking at shotguns...another weapon used by militaries around the world...

They have started using the concept of banning "military weapons," because they know that any law that is passed with that intent, will allow them to come after hunting rifles, "sniper rifles," and shotguns.......

And when people realize that that is their goal, it will be too late......the democrats will shrug and say "ooops.....we didn't realize those were also military weapons....." and ban them anyway....

 

[Abatis]

I want to learn about your tradition of individual freedom.

No, you have no interest in that, only denigrating America and our rights.

You are just a contrarian, completely useless in any discussion, only intending to disrupt and sabotage debate.

 

[Abatis]

A strawman fallacy is where a lie is contrived about one’s opponent, in this case the idiotic lie that anyone seeks to ‘rewrite,’ ‘scrap,’ or otherwise ‘undermine’ the Second Amendment.

Then the lie is attacked by the creator of the lie claiming ‘victory.’

There is no nefarious plot to disarm Americans – this sort of moronic sophistry and demagoguery is typical of the dishonest, reprehensible right.

You have to realize you are conjuring a conundrum (and enigma?) by denouncing something as a strawman fallacy by employing the strawman fallacy yourself . . .

 

[Open Bolt]

Yep.......when they say they want to ban "Military weapons," they are looking at the deer hunting rifle...a rifle in current use by Militaries around the world.....also, they are looking at shotguns...another weapon used by militaries around the world...
They have started using the concept of banning "military weapons," because they know that any law that is passed with that intent, will allow them to come after hunting rifles, "sniper rifles," and shotguns.......

This is why I never give in on their attempts to arbitrarily assign a scary name to a gun.

If you allow them to get away with arbitrarily assigning a scary name to a gun, they will then use that scary name as justification for banning the gun regardless of the true facts about that gun.

Any label that includes anything like "assault" or "military" or "war" I automatically interpret as referring only to full-auto weapons and explosives.

And then I tell them that all of those weapons were already banned 88 years ago.