NRA General Counsel Robert Dowlut Convicted of Murder

[WinterBorn]

Unwatch. i'm done.

Ok by me. It was fun humiliating and educating you. Hopefully others found it as educational.

 

[JoeB131]

Only people who've agreed with you here are nuttier than you are.

 

[WinterBorn]

Only people who've agreed with you here are nuttier than you are.

The overwhelming majority of people in this country disagree with what you want. Only an extreme minority of lunatics are calling for bans on all firearms, as you have. I guess most people in this country are "nuts" by your definition. That speaks volumes about your own mental instability.

 

[jon_berzerk]

Only people who've agreed with you here are nuttier than you are.

The overwhelming majority of people in this country disagree with what you want. Only an extreme minority of lunatics are calling for bans on all firearms, as you have. I guess most people in this country are "nuts" by your definition. That speaks volumes about your own mental instability.

+ what apparently seems to be an OCD --LOL

 

[Joe Steel]

That's not right. The Founders feared a "standing," or professional, army. They wanted a civilian military which they thought couldn't be used to oppress the citizens the way the English army did. The Second Amendment guarantees control of the military to the People not the government.

And maintaining an armed population still accomplishes that.

Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. In either case, it's not what the Second Amendment is intended to d.

 

[WinterBorn]

That's not right. The Founders feared a "standing," or professional, army. They wanted a civilian military which they thought couldn't be used to oppress the citizens the way the English army did. The Second Amendment guarantees control of the military to the People not the government.

And maintaining an armed population still accomplishes that.

Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. In either case, it's not what the Second Amendment is intended to d.

So you say. Many constitutional scholars disagree with you and think that is exactly what the 2nd was meant to do.

 

[Joe Steel]

Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. In either case, it's not what the Second Amendment is intended to do.

So you say. Many constitutional scholars disagree with you and think that is exactly what the 2nd was meant to do.

There's the problem. At best, the Second Amendment is unclear and ambiguous. Anyone can find in it whatever the want to find. The only prudent course of action is to ignore it. Short of that, it should be interpreted in the most minimal way possible, giving the text only the meaning supported by common rules of construction.

 

[2aguy]

At best, the Second Amendment is unclear and ambiguous.

Only for those seeking to get rid of it..."shall not be infringed" is only hard for anti gunners to understand...

 

[2aguy]

We have 32,000 gun deaths and 78,000 gun injuries in this country every year because people like you aren't laughed at.

You do realize that of the 32,000 or so gun deaths only 11-12,000 are gun murders, the majority of the rest are suicides by people taking their own lives...and accidental gun deaths....only between 600-700 each year....now compare that number to the number of times people use guns to save lives, and stop violent criminals...1.4 millions (an average of 15 different gun studies on how often people use guns in self defense)

So...gun save lives...

 

[WinterBorn]

Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't. In either case, it's not what the Second Amendment is intended to do.

So you say. Many constitutional scholars disagree with you and think that is exactly what the 2nd was meant to do.

There's the problem. At best, the Second Amendment is unclear and ambiguous. Anyone can find in it whatever the want to find. The only prudent course of action is to ignore it. Short of that, it should be interpreted in the most minimal way possible, giving the text only the meaning supported by common rules of construction.

LMAO!! Of course, since you want guns gone, you would want the amendment ignored.

But I believe that our rights and freedoms should be assumed unless you can show solid evidence to the contrary. You wish to take away a fundamental, constitutional right. That does not happen by default. It is not easy for a reason. It should not be easy to remove a freedom from our citizens.

 

[Joe Steel]

There's the problem. At best, the Second Amendment is unclear and ambiguous. Anyone can find in it whatever the want to find. The only prudent course of action is to ignore it. Short of that, it should be interpreted in the most minimal way possible, giving the text only the meaning supported by common rules of construction.

LMAO!! Of course, since you want guns gone, you would want the amendment ignored.

Of course. It does more harm than good.

But I believe that our rights and freedoms should be assumed unless you can show solid evidence to the contrary. You wish to take away a fundamental, constitutional right. That does not happen by default. It is not easy for a reason. It should not be easy to remove a freedom from our citizens.

You're assuming facts not in evidence. The so-called personal freedom to possess guns is at issue. It has not been shown to exist except by misconstruction of the Second Amendment.

 

[WinterBorn]

There's the problem. At best, the Second Amendment is unclear and ambiguous. Anyone can find in it whatever the want to find. The only prudent course of action is to ignore it. Short of that, it should be interpreted in the most minimal way possible, giving the text only the meaning supported by common rules of construction.

LMAO!! Of course, since you want guns gone, you would want the amendment ignored.

Of course. It does more harm than good.

But I believe that our rights and freedoms should be assumed unless you can show solid evidence to the contrary. You wish to take away a fundamental, constitutional right. That does not happen by default. It is not easy for a reason. It should not be easy to remove a freedom from our citizens.

You're assuming facts not in evidence. The so-called personal freedom to possess guns is at issue. It has not been shown to exist except by misconstruction of the Second Amendment.

More harm than good? 10k gun related murders is, admittedly, a terrible thing. 100k crimes stopped by civilians with guns is not. 65 million gun owners and 10k murders. If every gun related murder was committed by a legal gun owner (they are not, not by a long shot) the it would still only amount to 0.015% of the gun owners. 99.9% have not killed anyone.

Also, hunters (the overwhelming majority using guns) donate between 1.5 and 1.9 million servings of high quality protein to homeless shelters, soup kitchens and food banks. Recreational shooting is at an all time high for popularity. Hunting is a sport enjoyed by millions and used to provide food for many families.

More harm than good? I doubt that very much.


You claim the right has been shown to exist only by misconstruction of the 2nd Amendment. I disagree. And so do plenty of constitutional scholars. Your assumption that the right granted must now be denied, simply because you and a few others disagree, is ridiculous.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Which means the sun was already up. 6:34 was the MORNING, last time I checked.

It would be starting to get light at that time of year.

So your point is that Degan knew he was murdering a young boy when he shot?

Look, they brought FBI assassin Lon Horiuchi along - their only purpose was to murder people.

 

[daws101]

Something truly ironic about the op....just can't put my trigger finger on it.?

 

[Uncensored2008]

If the shooting happened just after sunrise, the agents were prowling around the property at night.

It does not change any of the facts. Sammy Weaver was murdered by federal agents who did not identify themselves and wore no identifying badges or insignia.

The assault began at 4:00 AM.

What they were doing for 2.5 hours is unknown.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Something truly ironic about the op....just can't put my trigger finger on it.?

A leftist spreading outright lies?

That's not ironic duhs, that's typical.

 

[daws101]

Something truly ironic about the op....just can't put my trigger finger on it.?

A leftist spreading outright lies?

That's not ironic duhs, that's typical.

any credible proof they are lies?
or is it your standard disclaimer leftist are all liars?

 

[2aguy]

of is your standard disclaimer leftist are all liars?

Among a number of other things....

 

[daws101]

My brother says you're a lefty pinko rag. True?
Here's where we're coming from: We believe all people should have equal opportunity in life, that all children should be able to go to good schools, and that everyone should have health care. Call that what you will–we're not insulted by being called left, liberal, progressive, whatever. (We've noticed, though, that the people who resort to name-calling are often just trying to distract the public from their own misdeeds.) Political inclinations notwithstanding, we will cheerfully investigate any people or entities of any political persuasion, right, left, or center, if their behavior warrants it.

 

[Uncensored2008]

any credible proof they are lies?
or is it your standard disclaimer leftist are all liars?

Robert Dowlut has never been convicted of any crimes - much less murder.

What is your word for what your fellow Communist did - if not "lie?"