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 ONLY way we can < effectively > deal with the gun problem is to have a new law that says " anyone who uses / carries a weapon in the course of committing a crime, whether it be a misdemeanor or felony, gets a MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE" and release the thousands of people in prison for simple possession of marijuana.
Let the pot users go and imprison the crazies who use weapons to commit crimes. Soon the bad guys would all be locked up for life instead of having stoners ( who never hurt anyone ) in prison.
MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE FOR USING A WEAPON AND COMMITTING A CRIME.
Straw, man. No one makes this argument.
In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home
Your wrong. Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.
You refuse to accept settled law.
Thus, the problem here lies with you and your inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
To Democrats, law isn't "settled" until a self apointed leftist dictator like John Robers rules to the left. Then it becomes absolute
Roberts is a "leftist" and self appointed? Interesting, GWB appointed him, btw, something every school kid knows by the 8th grade. As for him being a leftist, please define what exactly you mean by a "leftist"?
See post 6128Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech: threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
That ^^^ really is quite funny.
The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
The ONLY way we can < effectively > deal with the gun problem is to have a new law that says " anyone who uses / carries a weapon in the course of committing a crime, whether it be a misdemeanor or felony, gets a MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE" and release the thousands of people in prison for simple possession of marijuana.
Let the pot users go and imprison the crazies who use weapons to commit crimes. Soon the bad guys would all be locked up for life instead of having stoners ( who never hurt anyone ) in prison.
MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE FOR USING A WEAPON AND COMMITTING A CRIME.
The ONLY way we can < effectively > deal with the gun problem is to have a new law that says " anyone who uses / carries a weapon in the course of committing a crime, whether it be a misdemeanor or felony, gets a MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE IN PRISON WITHOUT PAROLE" and release the thousands of people in prison for simple possession of marijuana.
Let the pot users go and imprison the crazies who use weapons to commit crimes. Soon the bad guys would all be locked up for life instead of having stoners ( who never hurt anyone ) in prison.
MANDATORY LIFE SENTENCE FOR USING A WEAPON AND COMMITTING A CRIME.
The cost to the taxpayer is (depending on the State and the classification of the inmate) somewhere between 30k and 50k per year. Mandatory for life includes end of life medical (hospice) which can be long and costly.
See post 6128Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech: threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
That ^^^ really is quite funny.
The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
Straw, man. No one makes this argument.I wrote: Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.I like how liberals like Wry think in such complete and utter absolutes, then claim to be smarter because they aren't all black and white like conservatives...
In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.My points are consistent,....
There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the homeAsshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
"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."
Your wrong. Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
Challenge ... ACCEPTED
OK, Holmes. Answer either of these questions.
1) What other right allows government to decide who gets the right as well as you have to get a license and pay a fee
2) Where did the Founders say guns aren't really a right like other rights are...
now run away like the scared little bitch that you are
"scared little bitch"; spoken with the authority of trailer trash.
1. Word Salad, fix the syntax and maybe it might, possibly seem kinda like someone whose first language was English, and they completed the first grade.
2. I doubt anyone alive today heard anything the founder's said.
Your wrong. Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.
You refuse to accept settled law.
Thus, the problem here lies with you and your inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
To Democrats, law isn't "settled" until a self apointed leftist dictator like John Robers rules to the left. Then it becomes absolute
Roberts is a "leftist" and self appointed? Interesting, GWB appointed him, btw, something every school kid knows by the 8th grade. As for him being a leftist, please define what exactly you mean by a "leftist"?
Wrong. W appointed him to uphold the Constitution, Roberts appointed himself to rewrite it when he doesn't like what it has to say.
As for leftist, Roberts rewrote the Constitution to give us national healthcare, there isn't much more leftist than that, Holmes
M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.
You refuse to accept settled law.
Thus, the problem here lies with you and your inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
To Democrats, law isn't "settled" until a self apointed leftist dictator like John Robers rules to the left. Then it becomes absolute
Roberts is a "leftist" and self appointed? Interesting, GWB appointed him, btw, something every school kid knows by the 8th grade. As for him being a leftist, please define what exactly you mean by a "leftist"?
Wrong. W appointed him to uphold the Constitution, Roberts appointed himself to rewrite it when he doesn't like what it has to say.
As for leftist, Roberts rewrote the Constitution to give us national healthcare, there isn't much more leftist than that, Holmes
I suppose I should never ask you anything, reality isn't your forte.
See post 6128Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech: threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
That ^^^ really is quite funny.
The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
Is that true of other Constitutional rights too? Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?" Or is that just guns?
See post 6128Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech: threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
That ^^^ really is quite funny.
The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
Also, the only one who ever said gun rights are "unlimited" is you
See post 6128Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech: threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
That ^^^ really is quite funny.
The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
Is that true of other Constitutional rights too? Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?" Or is that just guns?
Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns. Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.
See post 6128Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech: threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
That ^^^ really is quite funny.
The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
Also, the only one who ever said gun rights are "unlimited" is you
LOL, not true, that you lie is another character flaw and or mental aberration you manifest.
Straw, man. No one makes this argument.I wrote: Your idea, if I'm stating it correctly is that anyone who has no record of arrests should have the right (at all times and in all places?) to be armed.
In that they stem from emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.My points are consistent,....
There's no ambiguity, as the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the homeAsshole (that is M14 and others like him) fall back on this ambiguity:
"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."
Your wrong. Two recent 5-4 Supreme Court Decisions made such a claim, anyone who reads the Second Amendment without bias and an open mind sees a very obvious ambiguity in the failure in syntax.
AMBIQUITY - uncertainty or inexactness of meaning in language.
SYNTAX - the arrangement of words and phrases to create well-formed sentences in a language
Challenge ... ACCEPTED
OK, Holmes. Answer either of these questions.
1) What other right allows government to decide who gets the right as well as you have to get a license and pay a fee
2) Where did the Founders say guns aren't really a right like other rights are...
now run away like the scared little bitch that you are
"scared little bitch"; spoken with the authority of trailer trash.
1. Word Salad, fix the syntax and maybe it might, possibly seem kinda like someone whose first language was English, and they completed the first grade.
2. I doubt anyone alive today heard anything the founder's said.
Note you didn't answer the question, I called the part you're a scared little bitch right. Here you go again. I have asked you this at least 20 times, no answer. It's pretty clear, see if you can solve it, Holmes. One of them has to be true given your insistence that licensing and registration and fees are cool for guns
OK, Holmes. Answer either of these questions.
1) What other right allows government to decide who gets the right as well as you have to get a license and pay a fee
2) Where did the Founders say guns aren't really a right like other rights are...
And no ability to respond with anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.I have no duty to answer anything you ask of me.
M14 and Kaz will now provide their analysis that the above is incorrect, wrong headed and simply a result of gun grabber ignorance.
You refuse to accept settled law.
Thus, the problem here lies with you and your inability to argue from anything other than emotion, ignorance and/or dishonesty.
To Democrats, law isn't "settled" until a self apointed leftist dictator like John Robers rules to the left. Then it becomes absolute
Roberts is a "leftist" and self appointed? Interesting, GWB appointed him, btw, something every school kid knows by the 8th grade. As for him being a leftist, please define what exactly you mean by a "leftist"?
Wrong. W appointed him to uphold the Constitution, Roberts appointed himself to rewrite it when he doesn't like what it has to say.
As for leftist, Roberts rewrote the Constitution to give us national healthcare, there isn't much more leftist than that, Holmes
I suppose I should never ask you anything, reality isn't your forte.
See post 6128Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech: threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
That ^^^ really is quite funny.
The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
Is that true of other Constitutional rights too? Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?" Or is that just guns?
Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns. Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too oftern in the past decade.
See post 6128Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech: threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
That ^^^ really is quite funny.
The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
Also, the only one who ever said gun rights are "unlimited" is you
LOL, not true, that you lie is another character flaw and or mental aberration you manifest.
I have no duty to answer anything you ask of me. To put your loaded and stupid questions to rest:
The Right to vote is restricted to those who are registered; we needed three amendments to the Constitution to force some States to do the right thing. Some, with Right Wing control still work to suppress this right.
See post 6128Good for you, you've now acknowledge what I've said dozens of times, the Second Amendment, much like the First Amendment (i.e. in re speech: threats, yelling fire in a crowded theater; in re religion: human sacrifice, freedom to marry more than one spouse; Assembly, restricted in a public place when deemed a public nuisance, infringed by permit process) is not an unlimited right.
Still waiting for your responses to the topics linked therein.
Non sequitur; that the 2nd allows some restrictions in no way means it allows the restrictions you mention here.Thus gun registration, licensing of those who want to own, possess or have in their custody and control requirements, permits to own types of gun and accessories should all pass muster if deemed a public nuisance or danger to the general public
That said....
You and I both know you cannot present a sound argument for the necessity of these things.
Absent the sound illustration of that necessity, there is no sound argument for their constitutionality.
Your opinions aren't persuasive. Given your fetish for guns, nothing you write on the topic is done without bias.
Now that you admit the Second does allow some restrictions, i.e. infringements, something I've argued before, you then try to equivocate your own statement.
That ^^^ really is quite funny.
The rule is licensing is acceptable (by your own statement), and the exception to the rule simply proves the rule that licensing is acceptable.
Yes pervert, anyone who thinks the second amendment protects the right to own a gun has a "fetish."
Is that true of other Constitutional rights too? Believing in free speech and search warrants means you have a "fetish?" Or is that just guns?
Wrong again asshole, "Fetishistic disorder is a mental health condition that centers on the employment of inanimate objects as a source of sexual satisfaction or the fulfillment of sexual fantasies or urges."
Clearly your life is focused on no one interfering with the satisfaction of playing with your guns. Why else do you spend hours defending an inanimate object, particularly one which has inflicted misery and death on innocent victims too often in the past decade.
Clearly you, in typical Liberal fashion, claim to know more about people than they know about themselves. Seems Liberals spend hours upon hours fantasizing how they can go about keeping people from owning guns. Sounds like a fetish to me.
