Oregon Gunman: Conservative Republican

[Obiwan]

And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...

All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.

Hey genius. The shooter is mixed race.
FAIL

Shouldn't you be directing this to Obiwan - you know, the one who said he was a White Supremacist?

Take it up with the LA Times...

Gun-obsessed, timid, and his mom called him 'baby': What we know of Chris Harper-Mercer's life

 

[Obiwan]

And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...

All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.

Guess again, Retard...
View attachment 51512

Guess again . . . what?

Not all Conservatives are republicans because not all Republicans are conservative. So you're taking glee in the fact that he's an independent Conservative?

Who are you more eager to defend, conservatives or Republicans?

I would think conservatives, but you're not very bright.

It's actually pretty apparent he was a Socialist...
Chris Harper Mercer’s Politics: What You Need to Know
Despite identifying himself as a conservative, on his MySpace page, Harper-Mercer posted numerous photos of the Irish Republican Army’s provisional incarnation. That group was openly fighting for a socialist Irish republic, which would be at odds with Harper-Mercer’s conservative leanings.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Sorry...
Not sure how you're disagreeing with me here.

Wasn't disagreeing with you.
Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that. I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms. Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms. That is a lie.

You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.

According to you. And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any). So you're wrong; yet again.

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

My turn:

1. A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
2. How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws? As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.

A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?

Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[Synthaholic]

The same people that think a cross-dressing faggot is a female just because he self-identifies as a "woman."

He definitely is a cross-dresser, but what makes him a faggot?

I don't think you know what words mean, little wingnut.

 

[Synthaholic]

And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...

All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.

Guess again, Retard...
View attachment 51512

Guess again . . . what?

Not all Conservatives are republicans because not all Republicans are conservative. So you're taking glee in the fact that he's an independent Conservative?

Who are you more eager to defend, conservatives or Republicans?

I would think conservatives, but you're not very bright.

It's actually pretty apparent he was a Socialist...
Chris Harper Mercer’s Politics: What You Need to Know
Despite identifying himself as a conservative, on his MySpace page, Harper-Mercer posted numerous photos of the Irish Republican Army’s provisional incarnation. That group was openly fighting for a socialist Irish republic, which would be at odds with Harper-Mercer’s conservative leanings.

How do you know that was the reason he supported the IRA?

Maybe he hated Protestants.
Maybe he hated oppressive governments imposing their will
Maybe he was in favor of Ireland belonging to the Irish, which is Nationalism - definitely a conservative trait.
Maybe he identified with IRA random violence.
Maybe he's part Irish.

 

[Synthaholic]

Wasn't disagreeing with you.
Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that. I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms. Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms. That is a lie.

You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.

According to you. And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any). So you're wrong; yet again.

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

My turn:

1. A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
2. How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws? As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.

A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?

Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You seem to ignore the word "regulated".

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.

According to you. And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any). So you're wrong; yet again.

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

My turn:

1. A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
2. How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws? As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.

A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?

Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You seem to ignore the word "regulated".

Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the "regulated" militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Hmmmm....doesn't change my point.

 

[candycorn]

Wasn't disagreeing with you.
Just pointing out that you asked me about taxing abortions and if I'd be okay with that. I said constitutionally, there is no barrier to taxing abortions or firearms. Then you came back and said I "wanted to tax" firearms. That is a lie.

You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.

According to you. And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any). So you're wrong; yet again.

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

My turn:

1. A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
2. How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws? As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.

A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?

Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The point is that if the framers didn't see the Militia as the reason, it would not be in the text of the amendment.

 

[Synthaholic]

According to you. And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any). So you're wrong; yet again.

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

My turn:

1. A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
2. How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws? As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.

A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?

Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You seem to ignore the word "regulated".

Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the "regulated" militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Hmmmm....doesn't change my point.

It wouldn't say regulated if they didn't mean for arms to be regulated.

 

[candycorn]

It doesn't mention any specific action, except "infringement"
Do you really believe that because the amendment not mention any specific action, then no action can "infringe" the right to arms?

No. But since there is already a price being charged the infringement argument via price is not actionable.

My interpretation? I cited the text - "...the right of the people..."
Where do YOU read "...the right of the people in a militia..."?
How is YOUR interpretation, contrary to that of the law, maningful in any way?

The word Militia is there for a reason. Your argument otherwise is silly.

The "need" here lies in a change that will prevent the crimes in question and not infringe on the rights of the abiding
Neither you nor anyone else can present such a change.

Except I just did
[/quote]
You did not - the fact that under you plan people will still have guns means that there is nothing in place to prevent mass shootings.[/QUOTE]

Outside of total confiscation, it is the only constitutional path forward.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

You want to enact a license fee, which is the same thing.

According to you. And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any). So you're wrong; yet again.

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

My turn:

1. A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
2. How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws? As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.

A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?

Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The point is that if the framers didn't see the Militia as the reason, it would not be in the text of the amendment.

The point is, if they wanted to limit the right to only militia members, they could have easily said that.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

My turn:

1. A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
2. How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws? As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.

A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?

Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

You seem to ignore the word "regulated".

Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the "regulated" militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Hmmmm....doesn't change my point.

It wouldn't say regulated if they didn't mean for arms to be regulated.

It didn't say well regulated arms.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

And according to CNN, he was also a white supremacist...

All White Supremacists are Conservative Republicans.

Guess again, Retard...
View attachment 51512

Guess again . . . what?

Not all Conservatives are republicans because not all Republicans are conservative. So you're taking glee in the fact that he's an independent Conservative?

Who are you more eager to defend, conservatives or Republicans?

I would think conservatives, but you're not very bright.

It's actually pretty apparent he was a Socialist...
Chris Harper Mercer’s Politics: What You Need to Know
Despite identifying himself as a conservative, on his MySpace page, Harper-Mercer posted numerous photos of the Irish Republican Army’s provisional incarnation. That group was openly fighting for a socialist Irish republic, which would be at odds with Harper-Mercer’s conservative leanings.

Harper did not 'identify himself' as an American.

Its account was hacked after he committed Leftism.

But it is hysterical that the Left has created a Conservative Republican, persecuting Christians! (In every sense of the word!)

ROFLMNAO!

YOU CAN NOT MAKE THAT CRAP UP!


​

 

[candycorn]

According to you. And it's not a license fee; it's an insurance policy that will compensate the victims (if any). So you're wrong; yet again.

Two questions:
- How does your proposed restriction not qualify as a infringement on the right to arms?

No part of the 2nd amendment refers to pricing. What it does refer to is a "well regulated militia" to which most gun nuts do not belong. It could be argued that their ownership of guns is not constitutionally protected in fact.

- What, in your book, DOES qualify as an infringement on the right to arms?

Not belonging to a militia which IS mentioned in the Constitution.

My turn:

1. A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"? Again, the hurdle is "constitutional".
2. How many massacres does it require to convince a gun nut that we need to change the laws? As it is happily pointed out time and again, most of the weapons used in massacres were legally obtained. The obvious conclusion to be drawn is that it is, therefore, too easy to obtain weapons.

A "well regulated militia" is in the document. How can it be argued that there is constitutional protection extended to those who bear arms who are not members of a "well regulated militia"?

Because it says the "right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed", it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The point is that if the framers didn't see the Militia as the reason, it would not be in the text of the amendment.

The point is, if they wanted to limit the right to only militia members, they could have easily said that.

Which was likely their intent. We've just interpreted it differently. A few more level-headed justices on the Supreme Court and appointments by HRC to lower courts will go a long way in correcting this.

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

It wouldn't say regulated if they didn't mean for arms to be regulated.

The word "regulated" did not mean RESTRICTED... dumbass, in the mid-late 18th century, 'regulated' conveyed 'structured, equipped, ordered'.

The thing you idiots never seem capable of understanding is that the BILL OF RIGHTS, preserved the means of the INDIVIDUAL to exercise it's INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS... and that in terms of the Militia, it is comprised exclusively of INDIVIDUALS, who due to security being essential to the state of freedom... their rights to own and use state of the art, military grade firearms, is not to be screwed with by those of subversive intent.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Ethnicity: Mixed Race

Ruh roh, CNN!

 

[candycorn]

It wouldn't say regulated if they didn't mean for arms to be regulated.

The word "regulated" did not mean RESTRICTED... dumbass, in the mid-late 18th century, 'regulated' conveyed 'structured, equipped, ordered'.

The thing you idiots never seem capable of understanding is that the BILL OF RIGHTS, preserved the means of the INDIVIDUAL to exercise it's INDIVIDUAL RIGHTS... and that in terms of the Militia, it is comprised exclusively of INDIVIDUALS, who due to security being essential to the state of freedom... their rights to own and use state of the art, military grade firearms, is not to be screwed with by those of subversive intent.

Great, so you agree all gun owners should be a member of a "well regulated militia" and your ownership should be based on that membership.

 

[TheGreatGatsby]

Check it, people. The non propoganda thread on this matter:

Oregon Gunman: Black Lives Matter Advocate | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

 

[jon_berzerk]

Louisiana shooter openly admired Westboro Baptist Church and Hitler - Gay Star News

"Another tweet, dated the day before, supported the notoriously homophobic Westboro Baptist Church:

The Westboro Baptist Church may be the last real church in America[members not brainwashed].

— john russell houser (@jrustyhouser) June 5, 2013

John Russell Houser: another proud USMessageboard Conservative Republican!

There are quite a few posters here who sound like they're one post away from opening fire.

yeah like you loser

--LOL

 

[Where_r_my_Keys]

Great, so you agree all gun owners should be a member of a "well regulated militia" and your ownership should be based on that membership.

I agree that every able-bodied male IS 'The Militia'. Because in reality, every able-bodied male IS the militia. With membership being 'present' and 'able-bodied male'; the responsibility for which is to be well armed, including ammunition and well trained in the use of those arms.

Is there something about that fact, that confuses you?