bripat9643
Diamond Member
- Apr 1, 2011
- 170,164
- 47,312
- 2,180
Where did he say mass murderers shouldn't be thrown in prison?Why do you use The 2A to justify mass murder?
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Where did he say mass murderers shouldn't be thrown in prison?Why do you use The 2A to justify mass murder?
oh well....shit happens...nothing works...drug laws don't work so why have laws."
nopeWe don’t need guns?????
nope
His party formed the KKK, gave us Jim Crow laws, filibustered the Civil Rights Act, and elected a Grand Kleagle of the KKK to the Senate until he went toes up in 2010 (was also Senate Majority Leader)Ah, the DemoKKKrats' wet dream.
You'd just shoot them? What are you actually saying?
And taxing the purchase of a gun isn’t restrictive?Americans have the right to bear arms, if they own them. Since ownership implies a purchase, that purchase can be taxed. However, a cruel and unusual tax, such as $500 per bullet, would be rightly seen as a way to restrict the 2nd Amendment and therefore be Unconstitutional.
Voting, on the other hand, requires no exchange of goods or services and does not require a commercial transaction. Any attempt to tax it therefore would be restrictive.
Why do you use The 2A to justify mass murder?
And taxing the purchase of a gun isn’t restrictive?
You are truly truly misinformed.The Amish don't have cars and they seem to get along just fine. As an added bonus you would stop bleating about global warming if we got rid of cars as well. Of course if we got rid of cars our need for guns would go up...
Like any other precedent, it can be change by the court in a single days ruling.You are confused Moon Bat and you are too stupid to know it.
The Supremes put an end to this silly militia nosense. I shit you not. Go look it up.
WHO has threatened to do that asshole?Try and take them.
And if you have been following the news...they pull it a bit too oftenGun owners are taught not to pull it if aren't prepared to use it.
Ok but dont you agree the government should set the example and get rid of all their guns first, nukes too"...Gun control is like a donut: there is no middle. On the one side you have people who love guns, and if you disagree with them, they’ll threaten to shoot you. On the other side you have people who detest guns, mainly out of fear of getting shot. It is an ideological death-match in which the voices of reason and compromise don’t seem to exist. Or if they do, no one can hear them over the sounds of the shouting and posturing
and the bumper-sticker slogans about cold dead hands." --"Matt" (anonymous) from his review of Adam Winkler's 'Gunfight, the Battle Over the Second Amendment in America"
There are some 400 million guns in America, and if guns were making us safer, we'd be the safest place on earth, which America is not.
That is a fact Republicans cannot reconcile.
And to average republican, I guess that for them, they aren't enough.
Guns deaths have taken the lead in children, and this is a fairly recent development. And, please, no crap about 'well, half those deaths are suicide' because,
simply because that stat isn't caused by fewer guns, let's be clear.
So I hope those of you second amendment 'cold dead hands' types are happy.
It sure isn't for the parents of those dead children whose lives have been ruined by your cherished 'second amendment'.
Personally, though America's second amendment was a necessary component of life in the frontiers of the late 18th century when the nation was founded, they could not have foreseen 233 years into the future to know of a modern urban landscape where weapons could kill hundreds of people in a relatively short period of time, that had they known, it is doubtful they would have confined the second amendment's langage to one compound sentence, whose actual meaning continues to be debated to this day.
It's time for a 28th Amendment to update the 2nd, a vertible 2nd Amendment 2.0, as it were, and as to what the new language would be, I'll let you guys duke it out, but it needs to be updated,
It's time.
Cheers,
Rumpole
Correct, we do not need guns.nope
"...Gun control is like a donut: there is no middle. On the one side you have people who love guns, and if you disagree with them, they’ll threaten to shoot you. On the other side you have people who detest guns, mainly out of fear of getting shot. It is an ideological death-match in which the voices of reason and compromise don’t seem to exist. Or if they do, no one can hear them over the sounds of the shouting and posturing
and the bumper-sticker slogans about cold dead hands." --"Matt" (anonymous) from his review of Adam Winkler's 'Gunfight, the Battle Over the Second Amendment in America"
There are some 400 million guns in America, and if guns were making us safer, we'd be the safest place on earth, which America is not.
That is a fact Republicans cannot reconcile.
And to average republican, I guess that for them, they aren't enough.
Guns deaths have taken the lead in children, and this is a fairly recent development. And, please, no crap about 'well, half those deaths are suicide' because,
simply because that stat isn't caused by fewer guns, let's be clear.
So I hope those of you second amendment 'cold dead hands' types are happy.
It sure isn't for the parents of those dead children whose lives have been ruined by your cherished 'second amendment'.
Personally, though America's second amendment was a necessary component of life in the frontiers of the late 18th century when the nation was founded, they could not have foreseen 233 years into the future to know of a modern urban landscape where weapons could kill hundreds of people in a relatively short period of time, that had they known, it is doubtful they would have confined the second amendment's langage to one compound sentence, whose actual meaning continues to be debated to this day.
It's time for a 28th Amendment to update the 2nd, a vertible 2nd Amendment 2.0, as it were, and as to what the new language would be, I'll let you guys duke it out, but it needs to be updated,
It's time.
Cheers,
Rumpole
obesity kills many more than guns.....do yo propose to outlaw food too Mr StalinA friend of mine wanted to respond to your comment, so I let him:
Mr. Friscus, Comparing car fatalities to gun deaths is like comparing apples to hand grenades – they're just not the same thing. Cars, you see, they're meant to get us from point A to point B. And yeah, sure, accidents happen, but we've got all sorts of rules and gadgets in place to make 'em safer, you know? Seatbelts, airbags, traffic laws – you name it.
But guns? Guns are a whole different ball game. These babies are designed to make holes in things – sometimes animals, sometimes people. And when it comes to kids, well, we've got a serious problem on our hands. So, comparing car deaths to gun deaths – it's just not a fair fight, my friend.
Now, don't get me wrong. we're not saying that Democrats, Republicans, or any other political animal out there don't care about car-related fatalities. We've all got our causes, and some of us even care about multiple things at once – imagine that!
But the thing is, with guns, there's a lot of room for improvement. We could have better background checks, waiting periods, maybe even mental health screenings – just a thought! So, let's not get all emotional here, and instead, focus on findinobg some real solutions.
What we're talkin' about isn't exploiting tragedies; it's acknowledging that there's a problem that needs fixin'. And hey, maybe it's time to give that 2nd Amendment a little makeover, huh? Let's work together, find some common ground, and save some lives. Because, let's face it, folks – we can do better. ---Rumpole's friend.
Gunnutter, I am on the reserve list to confiscate weapons when the time comes.Try and take them.
And if you have been following the news...they pull it a bit too often