Gun control vs. Terrorism (Dem hypocrisy)

[Rustic]

Self defense has always been an individual thing, like it or not. LOL

Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

There is no due process needed for a right to exist it is only needed when attempting to deny rights to an individual

Yes, there is. Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are confusing defense of self and property, with defense of a State or the Union.

The state of the union means nothing without the individual… There is no need for a collective

Only in right wing fantasy, not real life.

The collective is the enemy, history has proven that over and over again

 

[jc456]

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

Trying to understand your logic here. So if somebody only has a pistol instead of a whatever, and he only kills 40 people instead of 70, you would consider that an accomplishment?

If there is a crazy dude on a rampage I’d much rather see him with a pistol instead of a machine gun... wouldn’t you?

The logic isnt tough

what are the numbers for the use of machine guns vs pistols in deaths in america?

 

[sakinago]

You got to read those words in context of that era, it doesn’t mean the same now as it did then.
Enforce the current laws, and don’t allow any new frivolous laws

The context hasn't changed. It means the same now as it did then.

No, not at all.
the second amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

No, it doesn't. Arms are declared socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8. Any more reading comprehension issues?

Na, The Second Amendment is solely for the individual

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

If that were the case, then why the need to differentiate between the militia, and people? And people cannot just be a declared for the collective because you want it to, that’s just a ridiculous interpretation since we know they did not mean collective as in “we look out for the collective over the individual” because that was not at all the way it was put into practice. Even if your interpretation (as ridiculous as it is) were correct, then why was there a need to mandate that the right to keep and bear arms NOT BE INFRINGED upon by the government???? That makes no sense whatsoever.

The mental gymnastics you have to do...have moved into the realm of delusions.

 

[jc456]

They are a less diverse country as well. Forget about the guns. If you take minority crime out of our statistics,

We still have too many murders, even if you only include white people offing each other.

and gun laws won't lower the murder rate,

gun laws increase the murder rate. These goofs don't look at the data at all. zip. emotional ideology doesn't solve problems or a problem solver make. where conceal and carry bring it down. again the lack of knowledge is amazing with these goofs.

BTW, conceal and carry doesn't include machine guns. so what is the objective stop murders or get rid of machine guns?

 

[Rustic]

The context hasn't changed. It means the same now as it did then.

No, not at all.
the second amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

No, it doesn't. Arms are declared socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8. Any more reading comprehension issues?

Na, The Second Amendment is solely for the individual

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

If that were the case, then why the need to differentiate between the militia, and people? And people cannot just be a declared for the collective because you want it to, that’s just a ridiculous interpretation since we know they did not mean collective as in “we look out for the collective over the individual” because that was not at all the way it was put into practice. Even if your interpretation (as ridiculous as it is) were correct, then why was there a need to mandate that the right to keep and bear arms NOT BE INFRINGED upon by the government???? That makes no sense whatsoever.

The mental gymnastics you have to do...have moved into the realm of delusions.

He’s confused, at least. Most likely though he’s just a control freak…

 

[danielpalos]

lol. Projecting much, right wingers?

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Self defense has always been an individual thing, like it or not. LOL

Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

And when it comes right down to it, ultimately is an individual thing

Only for defense of self; well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

That has nothing to do with individual firearm ownership and the second amendment… The country and the government are not one in the same.
The Constitution is there for protection of the country from the federal government.

I am saying our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

It has to be in the federal districts.

There is a reason why after background checks have been performed all record of the purchase has to be destroyed by the FBI. Firearm registration is absolutely unconstitutional

Maybe for private citizens; not for the organized or unorganized militia.

See if you’re confused, go back and read the second amendment in the context of the era.
It’s all about the individual and the right for the individual to own firearms, Without any interference from the federal government.

You need better reading comprehension.

The second amendment has nothing to do with the military…

Yes, it does; it is a military organization getting its authority from State or federal Government, not natural rights.

 

[danielpalos]

Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

There is no due process needed for a right to exist it is only needed when attempting to deny rights to an individual

Yes, there is. Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are confusing defense of self and property, with defense of a State or the Union.

The state of the union means nothing without the individual… There is no need for a collective

Only in right wing fantasy, not real life.

The collective is the enemy, history has proven that over and over again

Just right wing cluelessness and Causelessness.

Government is about collective potential not Individual potential.

 

[danielpalos]

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

Trying to understand your logic here. So if somebody only has a pistol instead of a whatever, and he only kills 40 people instead of 70, you would consider that an accomplishment?

If there is a crazy dude on a rampage I’d much rather see him with a pistol instead of a machine gun... wouldn’t you?

The logic isnt tough

what are the numbers for the use of machine guns vs pistols in deaths in america?

Who cares; some of us just need to get good enough to weapons qualify to become, bazookaniers or grenadiers.

 

[jc456]

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

Trying to understand your logic here. So if somebody only has a pistol instead of a whatever, and he only kills 40 people instead of 70, you would consider that an accomplishment?

If there is a crazy dude on a rampage I’d much rather see him with a pistol instead of a machine gun... wouldn’t you?

The logic isnt tough

what are the numbers for the use of machine guns vs pistols in deaths in america?

Who cares; some of us just need to get good enough to weapons qualify to become, bazookaniers or grenadiers.

obviously not you.

 

[danielpalos]

The context hasn't changed. It means the same now as it did then.

No, not at all.
the second amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

No, it doesn't. Arms are declared socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8. Any more reading comprehension issues?

Na, The Second Amendment is solely for the individual

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

If that were the case, then why the need to differentiate between the militia, and people? And people cannot just be a declared for the collective because you want it to, that’s just a ridiculous interpretation since we know they did not mean collective as in “we look out for the collective over the individual” because that was not at all the way it was put into practice. Even if your interpretation (as ridiculous as it is) were correct, then why was there a need to mandate that the right to keep and bear arms NOT BE INFRINGED upon by the government???? That makes no sense whatsoever.

The mental gymnastics you have to do...have moved into the realm of delusions.

Not militarily preferable to try to have everyone muster and become well regulated.

Natural rights are distinct from the obligation of the militia to the security of a free State or the Union.

 

[danielpalos]

No, not at all.
the second amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

No, it doesn't. Arms are declared socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8. Any more reading comprehension issues?

Na, The Second Amendment is solely for the individual

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

If that were the case, then why the need to differentiate between the militia, and people? And people cannot just be a declared for the collective because you want it to, that’s just a ridiculous interpretation since we know they did not mean collective as in “we look out for the collective over the individual” because that was not at all the way it was put into practice. Even if your interpretation (as ridiculous as it is) were correct, then why was there a need to mandate that the right to keep and bear arms NOT BE INFRINGED upon by the government???? That makes no sense whatsoever.

The mental gymnastics you have to do...have moved into the realm of delusions.

He’s confused, at least. Most likely though he’s just a control freak…

Militia and military are collectives. "military of One" is just, regular propaganda.

 

[danielpalos]

No that’s not my logic, that’s your warped interpretation of it. You are trying to equate the firepower of a pistol to a machine gun because a guy with a pistol killed 32 people. It isn’t an intellectually honest arguement but I think you know that. Nice try

Trying to understand your logic here. So if somebody only has a pistol instead of a whatever, and he only kills 40 people instead of 70, you would consider that an accomplishment?

If there is a crazy dude on a rampage I’d much rather see him with a pistol instead of a machine gun... wouldn’t you?

The logic isnt tough

what are the numbers for the use of machine guns vs pistols in deaths in america?

Who cares; some of us just need to get good enough to weapons qualify to become, bazookaniers or grenadiers.

obviously not you.

why not; i prefer to have more than, nothing but repeal.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Na, It’s an individual thing you would not understand…

lol. Projecting much, right wingers?

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

Self defense has always been an individual thing, like it or not. LOL

Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

There is no due process needed for a right to exist it is only needed when attempting to deny rights to an individual

Yes, there is. Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

You are confusing defense of self and property, with defense of a State or the Union.

I'm not the one who is confused

Inalienable or natural rights do not have to be sanctioned by government as they exist within each person

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I am saying our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

1. You have NEVER provided any authority or source for your statement that the Second Amendment does not protect natural rights. That is complete bullshit, and I have proved (with citations) over and over again, the exact opposite. The bill of rights was to ensure that natural rights would be protected in forming a union, and even if they were not at the time the constitution was created, the 14th Amendment made it so. The Bill of Rights and 14th Amendment provide a double protection, against State authority.

2. You have, again, misstated the text of the Amendment to to twist and torture it to the meaning you want, but you are wrong!!! You state:

"It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union."

This CONFIRMS what I have said before about how you read the Amendment. You read it like this:

"A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state, the right of the well-regulated militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

You have repeatedly attempted to twist the meaning for your own communist ends, but fuck off. We are smarter than you and whomever is feeding you this unadulterated horse shit.

 

[sakinago]

No, not at all.
the second amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

No, it doesn't. Arms are declared socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8. Any more reading comprehension issues?

Na, The Second Amendment is solely for the individual

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

If that were the case, then why the need to differentiate between the militia, and people? And people cannot just be a declared for the collective because you want it to, that’s just a ridiculous interpretation since we know they did not mean collective as in “we look out for the collective over the individual” because that was not at all the way it was put into practice. Even if your interpretation (as ridiculous as it is) were correct, then why was there a need to mandate that the right to keep and bear arms NOT BE INFRINGED upon by the government???? That makes no sense whatsoever.

The mental gymnastics you have to do...have moved into the realm of delusions.

Not militarily preferable to try to have everyone muster and become well regulated.

Natural rights are distinct from the obligation of the militia to the security of a free State or the Union.

It wasn’t at all, and they learned that during the revolution that took place before the creation of the 2nd amendment, that militias were terrible when going up against regular armies, yet they still banned a standing army...why did they ban a standing army that’s immensely more effective at a common defense?

And agian your not even acknowledging the phrase “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.” Not the right of the militia, not the right of certain well trained people, not the right of the government, not the right of the collective, the people, which refers to all individuals under jurisdiction.

 

[sakinago]

No, not at all.
the second amendment gives every citizen the right to own guns, free of federal regulations, to protect themselves in the face of danger. The amendment's militia clause was never meant to restrict each citizen's rights to bear arms.

No, it doesn't. Arms are declared socialized for the militia in Article 1, Section 8. Any more reading comprehension issues?

Na, The Second Amendment is solely for the individual

No, it isn't. Militia and the People are collective, not Individual.

The right wing is simply clueless and Causeless, like usual.

If that were the case, then why the need to differentiate between the militia, and people? And people cannot just be a declared for the collective because you want it to, that’s just a ridiculous interpretation since we know they did not mean collective as in “we look out for the collective over the individual” because that was not at all the way it was put into practice. Even if your interpretation (as ridiculous as it is) were correct, then why was there a need to mandate that the right to keep and bear arms NOT BE INFRINGED upon by the government???? That makes no sense whatsoever.

The mental gymnastics you have to do...have moved into the realm of delusions.

Not militarily preferable to try to have everyone muster and become well regulated.

Natural rights are distinct from the obligation of the militia to the security of a free State or the Union.

There is still the natural right of SELF defense, which is about as self evident as it gets. No one (in their right mind) would say “when you are under attack, you have to lay there and take it, because that’s natural...just like how a mama bear will sit there and let you take her cubs away.” Again go read a goddamn history book, you do not know what you are talking about. And all the answers you claim to know are right there out in the open to find and read. If you actually believe what your saying, then go ahead and look up what the founders said on the matter, should be easy to prove yourself.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes, it does; it is a military organization getting its authority from State or federal Government, not natural rights.

And, you know this how? Who said? Have you read what the Founders wrote about the Amendment? Or, are you just pulling this nonsense straight out of your ass?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Not militarily preferable to try to have everyone muster and become well regulated.

Natural rights are distinct from the obligation of the militia to the security of a free State or the Union.

If the term "militia" as used in the 2nd Amendment, is referring to the military, the most reasonable interpretation, based on the writings of the Founders, would be as follows:

Because a dangerous, but necessary evil of a well-regulated standing army is needed to secure a State's sovereignty, to protect the people from that standing army, the people's right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.



In other words:

Because we need a standing army to protect us, we will also let individuals be equally armed to protect the people from that standing army, should the army's leadership decide to take power for themselves.

 

[sakinago]

Self defense has always been an individual thing, like it or not. LOL

Defense of self and property is recognized as a natural right in State Constitutions and available via Due Process.

And when it comes right down to it, ultimately is an individual thing

Only for defense of self; well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State.

That has nothing to do with individual firearm ownership and the second amendment… The country and the government are not one in the same.
The Constitution is there for protection of the country from the federal government.

I am saying our Second Amendment has nothing to do with natural rights. It has Only to do with what is necessary to the security of a free State and why well regulated militia of the People, may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

The right of self defense, even when it comes to the state, say a police officer acting unjustly. The constitution is just a piece of paper, it had no real power, the founders recognized this. If the population wasn’t armed, then the state, or some rogue group, with power (firearms) could at any time ignore the constitution at will. So the second defends the natural right of self defense, as well as defense the entire constitution, that put the power (firearms) into the hands of its people. This shouldn’t have to be explained to you.