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.
The left doesn't make laws, your own elected representatives do. Why should the left believe that the Persons you elected to an office of public Trust, are trying to "grab your guns" via the law.Liberals have no plan other then crying for new gun laws. What they fail to state is that each state has their own gun laws as we'll as the federal govt in place that are written so that unlawful citizens cannot purchase legal guns. The laws are in place for law abiding citizens. Criminals will never abide by such laws. No new law will stop a criminal from using a gun to commit a criminal act. Liberals don't want new laws they want our guns. The 2 amendment was written so that we the American citizens could protect ourselves against tyranny.
Thank you for, again, for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, irgorance and/or dishonesty.
People like you are why the federal government will never pass additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding.
Keep up the good work.
People like you argue from emotion, self interest and a disregard for others. The Brady Bill passed and DC v. Heller was one vote short of passing.
The recent murders in SC and the resultant vote to take down that flag are evidence that public opinion is more important to pols than long held principles - the Second is not sacrosanct and you and your kind are in the minority.
Keep on keeping on and more psychos will commit more atrocities - the blood of the innocent are sometimes needed to fertilize the tree of common sense.
The one who keeps talking about emotion is you, gay boy. A clear sign you know how ridiculous your actual argument is
My effort to use the Socratic method maybe weak, but it is clearly way over your head.
Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other.
One more point, stating I'm arguing from emotion is classic, one more example of the right wing claiming what they do and attributing it to others.
That's classic. I responded to a post you called me "sis" by calling you gay and you respond wit this: "Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other."
What a retard
What goes around, comes around, sis. You choose to patronize, I'll come back with the same crap. I'm not your bro; you may address me as "sir" or Mr. Catcher, you should know your place.
"What a retard"? A classic example of someone who posts without thinking and in doing so proves one of my points, to wit: "it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other."
Liberals have no plan other then crying for new gun laws. What they fail to state is that each state has their own gun laws as we'll as the federal govt in place that are written so that unlawful citizens cannot purchase legal guns. The laws are in place for law abiding citizens. Criminals will never abide by such laws. No new law will stop a criminal from using a gun to commit a criminal act. Liberals don't want new laws they want our guns. The 2 amendment was written so that we the American citizens could protect ourselves against tyranny.
People like you argue from emotion, self interest and a disregard for others. The Brady Bill passed and DC v. Heller was one vote short of passing.
The recent murders in SC and the resultant vote to take down that flag are evidence that public opinion is more important to pols than long held principles - the Second is not sacrosanct and you and your kind are in the minority.
Keep on keeping on and more psychos will commit more atrocities - the blood of the innocent are sometimes needed to fertilize the tree of common sense.
The one who keeps talking about emotion is you, gay boy. A clear sign you know how ridiculous your actual argument is
My effort to use the Socratic method maybe weak, but it is clearly way over your head.
Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other.
One more point, stating I'm arguing from emotion is classic, one more example of the right wing claiming what they do and attributing it to others.
That's classic. I responded to a post you called me "sis" by calling you gay and you respond wit this: "Calling me gay is one more example of your inability to argue a point rationally, much like the others whose only rebuttal is to call me stupid or a moron; it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other."
What a retard
What goes around, comes around, sis. You choose to patronize, I'll come back with the same crap. I'm not your bro; you may address me as "sir" or Mr. Catcher, you should know your place.
"What a retard"? A classic example of someone who posts without thinking and in doing so proves one of my points, to wit: "it's a sign that they and you cannot think critically, and why you parrot each other."
The only one of us both being insulting and whining about insults is you
I'm not a sissy, sis; you toss one at me I toss it back
You and I both know it is impossible for you to soundly support this assertion.People like you argue from emotion, self interest and a disregard for others.Thank you for, again, for helping to prove the premise that anti-gun loons can only argue from emotion, irgorance and/or dishonesty.^^^This is a lie.It's obvious to everyone following the threads on gun and gun control that I've remained engaged^^^
You and I both know that this is a lie.
Difference is that I am honest enough to admit it.
Disagree?
There's a link to the topic you tucked tail and ran from in my sig. You know where to find me.
^^^You're a liar and pathologically obsessed, characteristics of idiopathic jerks.
Projection
Denial
People like you are why the federal government will never pass additional restrictions on the 2nd Amendment rights of the law abiding.
Keep up the good work.
You said that before.And DC v. Heller was one vote short of passing.
it is against federal law to knowingly sell a gun to has been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution;."Nuts" meaning mentally unstable maybe true, but why provide a gun to a mentally unstable person - either unwittingly or with intent to profit?
The fact that you refuse to engage in an honest and open debate on gun control, however, is clear and plain for everyone to see.My effort to use the Socratic method maybe weak, but it is clearly way over your head.
There is, and you know it -- all you need to do is return to the one you tucked tail and ran from.There is no HONEST DEBATE with gun nuts.
There is no HONEST DEBATE with gun nuts. Anyone who believes gun laws today are adequate is a liar and/or a fool.
This thread is nothing more than a troll asking a loaded question, and gun nuts calling those who attempt to engage them in a rational discussion unflattering names. No one can devise a scheme to keep guns out of the hands of criminals, and previously convicted persons are not the only set of people who should never have a gun in their possession.
That includes the gun nuts above whose anger is palpable and apparently unrestrained.
People that kill are nuts.
People that are nuts will find a way to kill if they really want to.
Guns or not.
Just another case of the Government/Media distracting us with nonsense and telling us what to care about...
"Nuts" meaning mentally unstable maybe true, but why provide a gun to a mentally unstable person - either unwittingly or with intent to profit?
I'm pretty sure most of us would much rather be confronted by a nut with a weapon other than a gun - one cannot block a magazine of ten or more rounds from 10 feet away, but give the nut a weapon which brings him into striking distance and 1) they may think twice and 2) the intended victim has an opportunity to not only survive but to apply great bodily harm to the assailant.
Yeah -- damn that due process and all.Point being... let's address our mental health issues in this country.
It's a shame someone has to die before anything can be done to put someone away....
simply because moral practice should lead to forms of moral perfection.I believe the right has some "splaining" to do; the social morals of Religion are free. Why are some Persons of religion being illegal to the laws of a god?
Because all Persons of religion are people and people aren't perfect. I have no idea why people like you think that being religious makes you perfect.
No, it doesn't. It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.So you have no freaking idea how you are going to keep guns from criminals, so you're just going to go ahead and support laws that only keep guns from honest citizens and make sure the criminals are the only ones armed
Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.
Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns. Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.
Really? The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting. Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with. You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.Licensing may keep some guns out of the hands of some criminals.
Licensing will not "keep guns from honest citizens" nor will it ensure only criminals will have guns. Suggesting that is what I proposed is a lie, and is known as a Straw Man. Once again showing your abject ignorance of simple logic.
Really? The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting. Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with. You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
Every citizen? At All times? Are you sure? And, does that make any sense at all?
First of all, you understand the difference between these statements, no?
WryCatcher - Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
Ernie S - What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times
Second, you don't have a right to do what you want on other people's property, so you have a right to be armed when you are on your own or in public. You don't have a right on other people's property, and government can restrict guns on government property for government use. In other words, they can restrict guns for example in government buildings like courts, but they cannot restrict guns on streets or in parks
Not everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.No, it doesn't. It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.No one does. What the second amendment says is that every citizen has the RIGHT to be armed with a gun, at all times.Really? The people at Virginia Tech, Columbine, Aurora, Sandy Hook, The Washington Navy Yard and so on will find that interesting. Or they would if they were not dead because they were unarmed.
That in theory you can own a gun but laws prevent you from having it when you are being shot at aren't any different than just banning the guns to begin with. You're an idiot that you would even say that, and you insult anyone else's intelligence, classic
Do you actually believe every citizen needs to be armed with gun, at all times?
Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's? They appear to be the same to me
It really is that simple, except to the right.
Only because only well regulated militias of the People have literal recourse to our Second AmendmentNot everyone is entitled to the "character of a well regulated militia"; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.No, it doesn't. It says that the People who are a well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union to ensure the security needs of a free State.
Can you clarify what you think is different between your statement and Ernie's? They appear to be the same to me
It really is that simple, except to the right.
Right, militias are the people, so I still don't know what you think is different. Can you use unambiguous words instead of just repeating your statement that I'm questioning?
Interesting that you want a narrow literal interpretation of the Constitution right up until it comes to the 2nd Amendment.
I believe they may not be practicing enough.simply because moral practice should lead to forms of moral perfection.I believe the right has some "splaining" to do; the social morals of Religion are free. Why are some Persons of religion being illegal to the laws of a god?
Because all Persons of religion are people and people aren't perfect. I have no idea why people like you think that being religious makes you perfect.
When you can show me a person or a group of people from either side of the political spectrum that have achieved perfection, I'll consider your opinion. Until then, you're just being ridiculous and a partisan hack.
