Hey Liberals!

[frigidweirdo]

What's your point?

I just showed your idiot leftist friend that the second amendment did not strictly apply to a militia. Now you clowns are trying to bring up an issue that wasn't disputed.

Separating the militia from the Second and declaring that the Second includes that citizen have limited rights to own firearms for personal protection was just recently decided by the SC in a 5-4 decision. That right has nothing to do with protecting the country from it's duly elected government because a minority claim it is somehow tyrannical.

No one separated the militia from the second amendment. SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms was an individual right separate from a militia. Both are included in the second amendments text.

Yes the second amendment does have something to do with protection from a tyrannical government.


Here’s a brief history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

But what do you mean by "disarmed"? In many cases, like the Chinese, the people weren't armed in the first place to be disarmed. In fact in 1935 China was very poor, the Nationalists were in control of a country that was almost impossible for them to control. The Communists had weapons and then stuck it out in Yan'an for more than a decade before being able to effectively fight back after WW2 had finished and the Nationalist govt went off to Taiwan.

Nothing there suggests what you're talking about. In fact these sort of "facts" don't really say anything at all, but anyone who wants to believe will just believe without even knowing the actual history.

 

[HUGGY]

You demand gun control laws, (and others), that are Unconstitutional.
Why don't you work within the Constitutional bounds to get your way instead of just demanding it? Our Founding Fathers wrote Article Five just for you whiners, yet you ignore it!

Example:
Juan Williams,
Juan Williams reacts to Fort Hood: Time for U.S. to go 'gun-free' - Washington Times (there, I fixed it)

If you are against the United States Constitution, you are un-American and my enemy!

I'm begining to think that there are in fact no "liberals" ... they are just some booger man dreamed up by the Wrongwing wackadoodles. Seattle is a fairly freethinking area and I know of no anti gun legislation ever being considered.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ny2yqpCKDkc]Conway Twitty- It's Only Make Believe **WITH LYRICS** - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Billo_Really]

I'm begining to think that there are in fact no "liberals" ... they are just some booger man dreamed up by the Wrongwing wackadoodles. Seattle is a fairly freethinking area and I know of no anti gun legislation ever being considered.

Conway Twitty- It's Only Make Believe **WITH LYRICS** - YouTube

You won't repeat and the Rams will kick your teams' ass!





Gratuitous zone 2 compliance:
I don't like guns!

 

[Redfish]

What part of the Constitution mentions guns?

And it's typical you think other Americans are your enemy.

Liberals wage wars on foreign enemies.

Conservatives wage wars on other Americans.

today the government is the enemy of the people. the government is taking away your constitutional rights every day. and you willingly accept it as long as some evil rich guy is somehow damaged by it-----------you are pathetic.

So you consider the American government to be your enemy?

the part that is trying to destroy our economy and our culture---yes.

 

[Redfish]

When Liberals founded this nation they worried about how to secure their free state. They realized they needed well regulated militias to keep us free. The members of those militias were trained, registered and we knew how many guns they had and how much ammunition

Why does natstew hate America?

the founders were not liberals by today's definition. they were libertarians by today's definition.

the rest of your post is total bunk.

Are you referring to the fact that they suppressed women and owned black people?

Those things were the norm at the time, both parties participated in them. The republicans freed the slaves and passed the civil rights act.

we cannot try to judge today's morals and ethics by those of the past. Slavery was practiced by blacks on blacks in africa for hundreds of years before it was brought to the USA.

Sorry, dude, but the founders were nothing like today's liberals. not even close.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

Separating the militia from the Second and declaring that the Second includes that citizen have limited rights to own firearms for personal protection was just recently decided by the SC in a 5-4 decision. That right has nothing to do with protecting the country from it's duly elected government because a minority claim it is somehow tyrannical.

No one separated the militia from the second amendment. SCOTUS ruled that the right to bear arms was an individual right separate from a militia. Both are included in the second amendments text.

Yes the second amendment does have something to do with protection from a tyrannical government.


Here’s a brief history of what happens after governments have disarmed their citizens:

1911 – Turkey disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1915 – 1917 they murdered 1.5 million Armenians.

1929 – Russia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1929 – 1953 they murdered 20 million Russians.

1935 – China disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1948 – 1952 they murdered 20 million Chinese.

1938 – Germany disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1939 – 1945 they murdered 16 million Jews.

1956 – Cambodia disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1975 – 1977 they murdered 1 million Educated people.

1964 – Guatemala disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1964 – 1981 they murdered 100,000 Mayan Indians.

1970 – Uganda disarmed it’s citizens, and between 1971 – 1979 they murdered 300,000 Christians.

But what do you mean by "disarmed"? In many cases, like the Chinese, the people weren't armed in the first place to be disarmed. In fact in 1935 China was very poor, the Nationalists were in control of a country that was almost impossible for them to control. The Communists had weapons and then stuck it out in Yan'an for more than a decade before being able to effectively fight back after WW2 had finished and the Nationalist govt went off to Taiwan.

Nothing there suggests what you're talking about. In fact these sort of "facts" don't really say anything at all, but anyone who wants to believe will just believe without even knowing the actual history.

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in China is 40,000,000

Rate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population

The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in China is 4.9 firearms per 100 people

Number of Privately Owned Firearms - World Ranking

In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, China ranked at No. 3

Source

 

[frigidweirdo]

today the government is the enemy of the people. the government is taking away your constitutional rights every day. and you willingly accept it as long as some evil rich guy is somehow damaged by it-----------you are pathetic.

So you consider the American government to be your enemy?

the part that is trying to destroy our economy and our culture---yes.

Does that include the part that caused the largest recession since WW2?

 

[frigidweirdo]

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in China is 40,000,000

Rate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population

The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in China is 4.9 firearms per 100 people

Number of Privately Owned Firearms - World Ranking

In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, China ranked at No. 3

Source

Okay, but this has nothing to do with firearms in possession of Chinese people in 1935 to 1949 when the Communists got in power, nor through the time when they had to hold onto this power.

 

[Lonestar_logic]

The estimated total number of guns (both licit and illicit) held by civilians in China is 40,000,000

Rate of Civilian Firearm Possession per 100 Population

The estimated rate of private gun ownership (both licit and illicit) in China is 4.9 firearms per 100 people

Number of Privately Owned Firearms - World Ranking

In a comparison of the number of privately owned guns in 178 countries, China ranked at No. 3

Source

Okay, but this has nothing to do with firearms in possession of Chinese people in 1935 to 1949 when the Communists got in power, nor through the time when they had to hold onto this power.

No but it goes to show how time changes things.

Firearms are rooted deep in Chinese history.

 

[Nosmo King]

Speaking of the Constitution, can you explain to me that pesky clause about "well regulated..." blah blah. I know it's something that probably isn't important but perhaps you could explain the reason it's in the Constitution.

The militia consists of all able bodied men of the community.

The term, "well regulated" at the time meant well trained in military combat.

If the founders meant controlled, they would have worded it differently, they were not illiterate, as many on this site are.

"Shall not be infringed" would not have been written if they did not mean SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

At the time? Perhaps then we can assume that "at the time" of the 2nd amendment, the weaponry available to the state sanctioned military (the Navy and the Army on a two year basis) was virtually the same as weapons used by the citizens, those who could afford weapons anyway. But at THIS time, no private citizens can bear all the same arms available to the military. No private A-1 M-1 Abrams tanks ply the streets, no ICBM silos in back yards, no nuclear submarines moored in marinas. So there are some legitimate restrictions on the uninfringeable right to bear arms.

"A well regulated militia" starts the 2nd amendment. Semi-automatic weapons fitted with high capacity ammunition magazines are the types of weapons that belong in the hands of a 'well regulated militia', not on our streets or on our campuses, or theaters, or churches.

Just as "free speech" can be seen as an unrestricted right, the reality is, it isn't. So we can constitutionally infringe upon the rights of citizens to hold weapons of war because they pose a true threat to domestic tranquility.

 

[Katzndogz]

The liberal war on Americans is playing out right now in Nevada.

 

[BlindBoo]

The liberal war on Americans is playing out right now in Nevada.

More like a deadbeat not paying grazing fees for the cattle he raised on public lands for 20 years finally being called to task.

For the most part the Open Range and the wild frontier ended over a century ago.

 

[Redfish]

So you consider the American government to be your enemy?

the part that is trying to destroy our economy and our culture---yes.

Does that include the part that caused the largest recession since WW2?

Dodd/Frank ? Yep.

 

[Redfish]

Speaking of the Constitution, can you explain to me that pesky clause about "well regulated..." blah blah. I know it's something that probably isn't important but perhaps you could explain the reason it's in the Constitution.

The militia consists of all able bodied men of the community.

The term, "well regulated" at the time meant well trained in military combat.

If the founders meant controlled, they would have worded it differently, they were not illiterate, as many on this site are.

"Shall not be infringed" would not have been written if they did not mean SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

At the time? Perhaps then we can assume that "at the time" of the 2nd amendment, the weaponry available to the state sanctioned military (the Navy and the Army on a two year basis) was virtually the same as weapons used by the citizens, those who could afford weapons anyway. But at THIS time, no private citizens can bear all the same arms available to the military. No private A-1 M-1 Abrams tanks ply the streets, no ICBM silos in back yards, no nuclear submarines moored in marinas. So there are some legitimate restrictions on the uninfringeable right to bear arms.

"A well regulated militia" starts the 2nd amendment. Semi-automatic weapons fitted with high capacity ammunition magazines are the types of weapons that belong in the hands of a 'well regulated militia', not on our streets or on our campuses, or theaters, or churches.

Just as "free speech" can be seen as an unrestricted right, the reality is, it isn't. So we can constitutionally infringe upon the rights of citizens to hold weapons of war because they pose a true threat to domestic tranquility.

tanks and submarines are not guns. an M-16 is not the same as a 38 special. No gun rights supporters want average americans to have tanks, submarines, or assault rifles.

your red herring stinks.

 

[Nosmo King]

The militia consists of all able bodied men of the community.

The term, "well regulated" at the time meant well trained in military combat.

If the founders meant controlled, they would have worded it differently, they were not illiterate, as many on this site are.

"Shall not be infringed" would not have been written if they did not mean SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED!

At the time? Perhaps then we can assume that "at the time" of the 2nd amendment, the weaponry available to the state sanctioned military (the Navy and the Army on a two year basis) was virtually the same as weapons used by the citizens, those who could afford weapons anyway. But at THIS time, no private citizens can bear all the same arms available to the military. No private A-1 M-1 Abrams tanks ply the streets, no ICBM silos in back yards, no nuclear submarines moored in marinas. So there are some legitimate restrictions on the uninfringeable right to bear arms.

"A well regulated militia" starts the 2nd amendment. Semi-automatic weapons fitted with high capacity ammunition magazines are the types of weapons that belong in the hands of a 'well regulated militia', not on our streets or on our campuses, or theaters, or churches.

Just as "free speech" can be seen as an unrestricted right, the reality is, it isn't. So we can constitutionally infringe upon the rights of citizens to hold weapons of war because they pose a true threat to domestic tranquility.

tanks and submarines are not guns. an M-16 is not the same as a 38 special. No gun rights supporters want average americans to have tanks, submarines, or assault rifles.

your red herring stinks.

What distinguishes an M-16 from an AR-15? Firing action? Many gun nuts are quick to point out that the firing action on an AR-15 can be easily modified from a semi-automatic to a fully automatic.

 

[Sallow]

At the time? Perhaps then we can assume that "at the time" of the 2nd amendment, the weaponry available to the state sanctioned military (the Navy and the Army on a two year basis) was virtually the same as weapons used by the citizens, those who could afford weapons anyway. But at THIS time, no private citizens can bear all the same arms available to the military. No private A-1 M-1 Abrams tanks ply the streets, no ICBM silos in back yards, no nuclear submarines moored in marinas. So there are some legitimate restrictions on the uninfringeable right to bear arms.

"A well regulated militia" starts the 2nd amendment. Semi-automatic weapons fitted with high capacity ammunition magazines are the types of weapons that belong in the hands of a 'well regulated militia', not on our streets or on our campuses, or theaters, or churches.

Just as "free speech" can be seen as an unrestricted right, the reality is, it isn't. So we can constitutionally infringe upon the rights of citizens to hold weapons of war because they pose a true threat to domestic tranquility.

tanks and submarines are not guns. an M-16 is not the same as a 38 special. No gun rights supporters want average americans to have tanks, submarines, or assault rifles.

your red herring stinks.

What distinguishes an M-16 from an AR-15? Firing action? Many gun nuts are quick to point out that the firing action on an AR-15 can be easily modified from a semi-automatic to a fully automatic.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pPFFQHVRaoU]Bump fire AR-15 with the belt loop trick. - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Sallow]

the part that is trying to destroy our economy and our culture---yes.

Does that include the part that caused the largest recession since WW2?

Dodd/Frank ? Yep.

Okay..explain that one.

Show how Dodd/Frank caused a recession.

Go!

 

[rightwinger]

Does that include the part that caused the largest recession since WW2?

Dodd/Frank ? Yep.

Okay..explain that one.

Show how Dodd/Frank caused a recession.

Go!

Glenn Beck told him so

 

[frigidweirdo]

the part that is trying to destroy our economy and our culture---yes.

Does that include the part that caused the largest recession since WW2?

Dodd/Frank ? Yep.

I seem to remember that Bush was president too.