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.
What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
You understand all of those things you list are already prohibitions on gun ownership, right? And yet those same folks have no trouble getting guns.The POINT is criminals will ALWAYS find a way to get a gun... BECAUSE THERE CRIMINALS. The Point is should NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them. Logical, ethical, commonsense (non liberal) answer is YES.ALoveSupreme
Hey ALove, maybe you're the liberal who can finally answer the question. How exactly are you going to keep guns from criminals when any kid can get all the pot they want? What's your plan?
You seem fixated in asking loaded questions, over and over. Then pounding your chest claiming some sort of victory when no one responds; in fact it is one, a Pyrrhic one. No one can answer this question with any certainty, and knowing this you are obsessed in echoing yourself - making you look like the fool I know you to be.
Are you familiar with the term Mens rea? Do you know there is generally no way 'see' or discover a guilty mind until a guilty act (actus reus) is perpetrated?
Of course one might postulate that everyone who owns a gun has established Mens rea and simply needs the right circumstance to kill. Then it's up to the Corner's Inquest to decide the cause of death - At the hands of another, justifiable, accidental, etc.
Then a detective/inspector will join with Prosecutor's office to further investigate the matter if the coroner's examination so warrants, Keep this in mind gun nutters, your comments made on the Internet may one day come back to bite you in a court of law.
View attachment 45010
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
I've never disagreed with your statement, "NON CRIMINALS have the right to have a gun to protect themselves and their family from them". I've posted several times sober and sane citizens have the right to own, possess and have in their custody and control a gun.
I don't believe anyone convicted of domestic violence, stalking or making criminal threats, or convicted of battery, sexual battery, child or animal abuse, or ever detained as a danger to themselves or others, or convicted of felony driving under the influence of drugs or alcohol should be in possession of a gun ever.
The problem with this thread is M14 and other liars who constantly build straw men.
Rational people believe gun controls are necessary to mitigate gun violence in America.,
You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
What people are automatically in the militia?What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
Yeah, but what I said has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
I didn't say the govt could limit who is in the militia. I said they made a law which automatically puts certain people in the militia.
Would be nice if people read what I actually wrote instead of you arguing what you think I would probably have written were I someone who didn't know much.
I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
Nothing but diversion? How lazy of the capital right to have a social, hard work ethic.I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
That violates Metcalfe's Law and therefore invalid.
Sorry.
I think you are not considering Fair Trade laws in your answer here.Nothing but diversion? How lazy of the capital right to have a social, hard work ethic.I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
That violates Metcalfe's Law and therefore invalid.
Sorry.
Fair is a social concept not a capital concept. any Thing else?I think you are not considering Fair Trade laws in your answer here.Nothing but diversion? How lazy of the capital right to have a social, hard work ethic.I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
That violates Metcalfe's Law and therefore invalid.
Sorry.
That's not true in the paleo-existential construct.Fair is a social concept not a capital concept. any Thing else?I think you are not considering Fair Trade laws in your answer here.Nothing but diversion? How lazy of the capital right to have a social, hard work ethic.I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.
That violates Metcalfe's Law and therefore invalid.
Sorry.
You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
Yeah, but what I said has nothing to do with what you're talking about.
I didn't say the govt could limit who is in the militia. I said they made a law which automatically puts certain people in the militia.
Would be nice if people read what I actually wrote instead of you arguing what you think I would probably have written were I someone who didn't know much.
I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
Sorry; that concept may omit game theory and therefore less valid.That's not true in the paleo-existential construct.Fair is a social concept not a capital concept. any Thing else?I think you are not considering Fair Trade laws in your answer here.Nothing but diversion? How lazy of the capital right to have a social, hard work ethic.I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.
That violates Metcalfe's Law and therefore invalid.
Sorry.
Game, set, match.
No. Only the clueless and the Causeless fail to distinguish between keep and bear and acquire and possess to denote rights in private property which are secured in State Constitutions with those Terms.You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
I do.
Others seem to believe belonging to the militia is necessary for gun ownership.
I don't troll due to a social work ethic for free; unlike the clueless and Causeless and lazy, Capital Right.I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
Still trolling?
No. Only the clueless and the Cause fail to distinguish between keep and bear and acquire and possess to denote rights in private property which are secured in State Constitutions with those Terms.You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.What you wrote is a convoluted opinion, not facts, which you have no evidence to support and thus is your biased opinion. Don't feel bad, this is generally the same response typical of those defending the 2nd as sacrosanct, that is "IT CAN'T BE INFRINGED"; yet it is has been and will be again as long as the NRA and people like you resist any effort to mitigate gun violence in America.
Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
I do.
Others seem to believe belonging to the militia is necessary for gun ownership.
All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
I don't troll due to a social work ethic for free; unlike the clueless and Causeless and lazy, Capital Right.I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.Actually what I wrote is based solely on facts.
Looking back at the Founding Fathers we see that "bear arms" is synonymous with "render military service" and "Militia duty" as you can find here:Amendment II House of Representatives Amendments to the Constitution
But then again, all those people who claim to be pro-second amendment seem to ignore what isn't convenient for them, so they can continue to be "pro-second amendment" and make it say what the hell they want it to say.
As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
Still trolling?
Nothing but diversion, Person on the clueless and Causeless and socially lazy Right?I don't troll due to a social work ethic for free; unlike the clueless and Causeless and lazy, Capital Right.I understand that the Intent and Purpose of that law is in the first clause; the Judicature may not appeal to ignorance of it without political repercussions.You undertstand that "militia" is a reason given, not a requirement in the 2A, right? I mean, Scalia pretty much explains this very clearly.As I pointed out to another, service in the militia was limited to men between the ages of 16 and 45, (59 In some locales).
Effectively eliminating the ability to "keep" arms from males under the age of 16, males over the age of 45, and all females.
Which is why the Right was given to the People, not the Militia.
Still trolling?
Everything you post is trolling.
