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.
So, you want to take preventative measures on A FUCKING RIGHT. And you don't see a provlem with it.And?And the burden to prove it happened due to another's negligence.Other folks have rights too. Like the right to not accidentally be shot by someone who has no idea how to handle a gun, and the right to have their expenses taken care of if it does happen.No, the point of your statement is that you want to convert a right into a privilege, issue a license, charge a fee, and require insurance.You've completely and possibly deliberately misread the point of my statement.Right. We need to license and regulate computers and other forms of communication....Neither free speech nor the right to vote are physical objects that can kill your children if left unsecured. False equivalency is still false.
True equivalency....
The gun owner has the right to due process.
Don't I have the right not to worry some nutcase is gonna shoot me for taking his parking space?So, you want to take preventative measures on A FUCKING RIGHT. And you don't see a provlem with it.And?And the burden to prove it happened due to another's negligence.Other folks have rights too. Like the right to not accidentally be shot by someone who has no idea how to handle a gun, and the right to have their expenses taken care of if it does happen.No, the point of your statement is that you want to convert a right into a privilege, issue a license, charge a fee, and require insurance.You've completely and possibly deliberately misread the point of my statement.Right. We need to license and regulate computers and other forms of communication....Neither free speech nor the right to vote are physical objects that can kill your children if left unsecured. False equivalency is still false.
True equivalency....
The gun owner has the right to due process.
I bet you love prior constraint on free speech, don't you?
Fuck! I can't share a country with people who refuse to be free.
Your worry is no one's concern but your own.Don't I have the right not to worry some nutcase is gonna shoot me for taking his parking space?So, you want to take preventative measures on A FUCKING RIGHT. And you don't see a provlem with it.And?And the burden to prove it happened due to another's negligence.Other folks have rights too. Like the right to not accidentally be shot by someone who has no idea how to handle a gun, and the right to have their expenses taken care of if it does happen.No, the point of your statement is that you want to convert a right into a privilege, issue a license, charge a fee, and require insurance.You've completely and possibly deliberately misread the point of my statement.Right. We need to license and regulate computers and other forms of communication....Neither free speech nor the right to vote are physical objects that can kill your children if left unsecured. False equivalency is still false.
True equivalency....
The gun owner has the right to due process.
I bet you love prior constraint on free speech, don't you?
Fuck! I can't share a country with people who refuse to be free.
That kinda pops your home defense justification, doesn't it?Your worry is no one's concern but your own.
Why? It is my right.That kinda pops your home defense justification, doesn't it?Your worry is no one's concern but your own.
"Your Liberty To Swing Your Fist Ends Just Where My Nose Begins"Why? It is my right.That kinda pops your home defense justification, doesn't it?Your worry is no one's concern but your own.
You don't have a right to shit on my right to absolve your worry. I am not trying to control your life. Get the fuck out of mine.
That's a broad-as-fuck grant of arbitrary power which is hostile to unalienable rights. You think it will stop there?You can call it whatever you want however you intend to use it.If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the second amendment guarantees.
In the context of the law and firearm regulatory policy, lawmaking bodies have the authority to determine what is and what is not an assault rifle reflecting the will of the people.
What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that way of thinking?
The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.
you have that backwords,,, the constitution doesnt grant that right it protects it because its inalienable,,, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
a constitutional right is in fact not a right but a privilege/law granted by the government and can take it away,,, as the 2nd says,, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
You're asking how a machine can be classified as an automobile if no one intends to drive it.
Pretty stupid question!
No, I am not asking about automobiles, I am asking how a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner.
my lord youre a stupid fuck,,,That's a broad-as-fuck grant of arbitrary power which is hostile to unalienable rights. You think it will stop there?You can call it whatever you want however you intend to use it.If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the second amendment guarantees.
In the context of the law and firearm regulatory policy, lawmaking bodies have the authority to determine what is and what is not an assault rifle reflecting the will of the people.
What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that way of thinking?
The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.
you have that backwords,,, the constitution doesnt grant that right it protects it because its inalienable,,, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
a constitutional right is in fact not a right but a privilege/law granted by the government and can take it away,,, as the 2nd says,, "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
Nonsense!
If owning a gun was an inalienable right, then anyone could walk into a gun shop and take a gun without paying. If anyone tried to stop them they could declare that owning a gun was their 'inalienable' right.
The adjective inalienable means something that “can’t be transferred to someone else, taken away, or denied.”
"Unalienable" vs. "Inalienable": Is There A Difference? - Dictionary.com
Constitutional rights are not inalienable.
A gun is a manufactured item, which must be purchased - it is not a 'natural right' that everyone is born with.
those laws are invalid due to the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"You're asking how a machine can be classified as an automobile if no one intends to drive it.
Pretty stupid question!
No, I am not asking about automobiles, I am asking how a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner.
The government passed a law, or a government agency creates a categorization that defines it as such. That's how.
WRONG AGAIN!!!That's a broad-as-fuck grant of arbitrary power which is hostile to unalienable rights. You think it will stop there?You can call it whatever you want however you intend to use it.If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the second amendment guarantees.
In the context of the law and firearm regulatory policy, lawmaking bodies have the authority to determine what is and what is not an assault rifle reflecting the will of the people.
What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that way of thinking?
The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.
Jesus. You and rights do not belong together in the same sentence. You are a willing subject.
Where does the 2nd say guns??WRONG AGAIN!!!That's a broad-as-fuck grant of arbitrary power which is hostile to unalienable rights. You think it will stop there?You can call it whatever you want however you intend to use it.If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the second amendment guarantees.
In the context of the law and firearm regulatory policy, lawmaking bodies have the authority to determine what is and what is not an assault rifle reflecting the will of the people.
What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that way of thinking?
The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.
Jesus. You and rights do not belong together in the same sentence. You are a willing subject.
Inalienable rights are natural rights that people are born with. A gun is a manufactured item that has to be purchased.
You're simply declaring something as an inalienable right...just because you want it to be....doesn't make it so!
Kids kill themselves because of what their peers say about them. Political lemmings kill others because of what their leaders say. Words can kill. Voters can elect leaders that violently pit factions against each other. Votes can kill.She's more accurate at indoor distances with an ar? I find that difficult to believe. Also at 100lb she's gonna have an easier time maneuvering the 9. Make sure you've loaded with something that won't go through too many walls.My 100lb wife can't handle my 12 gauge. She is a great shot with a 9mm handgun, but WAY more accurate with the AR15.I have never argued you shouldn't be able to defend your home. I said a rifle was a poor choice to do it. I am also a proponent of licensing, registration, and insurance requirements. (You wouldn't believe what the insurance here costs).And, you have been one to throw that shit around yourself.And this is why I almost never mention it here.Operate a security contracting and consulting company. I don't have a gun cabinet, I have an armory. I have my own range with pop-ups and a shoot-house. When business is slow we teach defensive shooting.I dont care about your sex life,, just give us your address so we can let people know you defend you house with a water gun,,You don't know what I do, so I'm just gonna let that slide. I should give it to you, would serve you right.whats your address???Unless you're planning on standing off a squad of infantry and your home is extremely isolated a rifle is a terrible choice for home defense.How can a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner?
For home defense I keep a short old school remington 870 with a pistol grip and extended magazine. Also, being the kind of business it is and the people I employ I'm on a first name basis with local police, sheriff, and FBI.
Still wanna stop by?
r/iamverybadass
I have no doubt you have the will and ability to defend your home. Why do you doubt our ability?
You want me to limit her the ability to defend herself when I am away?
You wouldn't be a proponent of licensing free speech or the right to vote. Is it a right or not?
Neither free speech nor the right to vote are physical objects that can kill your children if left unsecured. False equivalency is still false.
those laws are invalid due to the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"You're asking how a machine can be classified as an automobile if no one intends to drive it.
Pretty stupid question!
No, I am not asking about automobiles, I am asking how a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner.
The government passed a law, or a government agency creates a categorization that defines it as such. That's how.
Where does the 2nd say guns??WRONG AGAIN!!!That's a broad-as-fuck grant of arbitrary power which is hostile to unalienable rights. You think it will stop there?You can call it whatever you want however you intend to use it.If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the second amendment guarantees.
In the context of the law and firearm regulatory policy, lawmaking bodies have the authority to determine what is and what is not an assault rifle reflecting the will of the people.
What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that way of thinking?
The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.
Jesus. You and rights do not belong together in the same sentence. You are a willing subject.
Inalienable rights are natural rights that people are born with. A gun is a manufactured item that has to be purchased.
You're simply declaring something as an inalienable right...just because you want it to be....doesn't make it so!
they give their opinion and dont make laws,,,those laws are invalid due to the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"You're asking how a machine can be classified as an automobile if no one intends to drive it.
Pretty stupid question!
No, I am not asking about automobiles, I am asking how a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner.
The government passed a law, or a government agency creates a categorization that defines it as such. That's how.
The supreme court...who are a whole lot more knowledgeable about the Constitution...has stated that the right to bear arms IS NOT an unlimited right. Guns can be regulated.
No one cares what you think the words "shall not be infringed" means.
I'm sure that you would not interpret the First amendment:
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion "
To mean that tax laws that recognize religious institutions and allow them not to pay taxes are not valid.
thats their choice,, I choose otherwise,,Where does the 2nd say guns??WRONG AGAIN!!!That's a broad-as-fuck grant of arbitrary power which is hostile to unalienable rights. You think it will stop there?You can call it whatever you want however you intend to use it.If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the second amendment guarantees.
In the context of the law and firearm regulatory policy, lawmaking bodies have the authority to determine what is and what is not an assault rifle reflecting the will of the people.
What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that way of thinking?
The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.
Jesus. You and rights do not belong together in the same sentence. You are a willing subject.
Inalienable rights are natural rights that people are born with. A gun is a manufactured item that has to be purchased.
You're simply declaring something as an inalienable right...just because you want it to be....doesn't make it so!
Good question. perhaps the second amendment would be satisfied as long as people were allowed to arm themselves with toothpicks.
they give their opinion and dont make laws,,,those laws are invalid due to the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"You're asking how a machine can be classified as an automobile if no one intends to drive it.
Pretty stupid question!
No, I am not asking about automobiles, I am asking how a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner.
The government passed a law, or a government agency creates a categorization that defines it as such. That's how.
The supreme court...who are a whole lot more knowledgeable about the Constitution...has stated that the right to bear arms IS NOT an unlimited right. Guns can be regulated.
No one cares what you think the words "shall not be infringed" means.
I'm sure that you would not interpret the First amendment:
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion "
To mean that tax laws that recognize religious institutions and allow them not to pay taxes are not valid.
I noticed you skipped over all the things I proved you wrong on,, care to respond to them??
where does the 2nd say guns???they give their opinion and dont make laws,,,those laws are invalid due to the words "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"You're asking how a machine can be classified as an automobile if no one intends to drive it.
Pretty stupid question!
No, I am not asking about automobiles, I am asking how a gun be designated an assault rifle without knowing the intent of a purchaser or owner.
The government passed a law, or a government agency creates a categorization that defines it as such. That's how.
The supreme court...who are a whole lot more knowledgeable about the Constitution...has stated that the right to bear arms IS NOT an unlimited right. Guns can be regulated.
No one cares what you think the words "shall not be infringed" means.
I'm sure that you would not interpret the First amendment:
" Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion "
To mean that tax laws that recognize religious institutions and allow them not to pay taxes are not valid.
I noticed you skipped over all the things I proved you wrong on,, care to respond to them??
The Supreme court is the FINAL authority on how laws are interpreted when there is a disagreement on the interpertation.
You have not proven me wrong on anything. Your understanding of the difference between inalienable rights and Constitutional rights is dead wrong.
The Declaration of Independence says:
"are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights"
Are people endowed by "their Creator" with owning guns? Are they born with guns?
The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right "endowed" by the U.S. Federal Government. Unlike unalienable rights, it did not exist until the Federal government was created and the Second Amendment ratified.
thats their choice,, I choose otherwise,,Where does the 2nd say guns??WRONG AGAIN!!!That's a broad-as-fuck grant of arbitrary power which is hostile to unalienable rights. You think it will stop there?You can call it whatever you want however you intend to use it.If a gun can be designated an assault rifle without knowing what the true intent of the rifle is, maybe they should be called defense assault rifles when they are intended for defense, and hunting assault rifles when they are intended for hunting. Maybe a freedom assault rifle if the intent is to simply have what the second amendment guarantees.
In the context of the law and firearm regulatory policy, lawmaking bodies have the authority to determine what is and what is not an assault rifle reflecting the will of the people.
What could POSSIBLY go wrong with that way of thinking?
The right to bear arms is a Constitutional right, not an inalienable right.
Jesus. You and rights do not belong together in the same sentence. You are a willing subject.
Inalienable rights are natural rights that people are born with. A gun is a manufactured item that has to be purchased.
You're simply declaring something as an inalienable right...just because you want it to be....doesn't make it so!
Good question. perhaps the second amendment would be satisfied as long as people were allowed to arm themselves with toothpicks.
