Poor poor liberal gun grabbers.

[LOki]

While arms are certainly property, the issue is not property rights, but rather the explicit assertion that the right of the people (NOT militias) to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

You may be missing the point and that composition;...

While I don't understand your reference to "composition" (I am beginning to suspect you translate your posts into English from another language), I'm not missing your point.

...our Second Article of Amendment specifically declares what is necessary to the security of a free State and it is clearly not the People as private citizens, but as that Body politic known as the Militia of the United States. Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

All of this is irrelevant, and none of this constrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is unambiguously clear on this point. It is made clear by the phrase, "shall not be infringed"; which refers only to the right to keep and bear arms (not state security, not regulating militias), and that right is unquestionably the right of the people--NOT well regulated militias, NOT free states.

I will put it to you plainly again: The security of a free state is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is DEPEPENENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, our Second Amendment is clear as to which Part of the Militia of the United States necessary to the security of a free State.

No. It makes clear what KIND of militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Regardless, membership in the militia is no prerequisite for, or constraint upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Yes, there must be a difference since Only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

NO! The phrase "shall not be infringed" belongs CLEARLY to the right of the people, and NOT the well regulated militia.

The necessity for well regulated militias is NO CONSTRAINT upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is NOT a prerequisite for nor qualifier upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is IN NO WAY limited to membership or service in a well regulated militia. This is made abundantly clear by the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That has nothing to do with the natural right to acquire and posses private property, which is secured in State Constitutions. Simply claiming that is simple fallacy of composition and false Cause, since those rights are already secured in State Constitutions and available via due process, for the several citizen in the several States.

Property rights are STILL not at issue.

I made NO CLAIM regarding property rights to rebut your errors of fact and logic.

Only one Body politic is enumerated as Necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the other ones.

Irrelevant to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again. Still.

 

[danielpalos]

You may be missing the point and that composition;...

While I don't understand your reference to "composition" (I am beginning to suspect you translate your posts into English from another language), I'm not missing your point.

...our Second Article of Amendment specifically declares what is necessary to the security of a free State and it is clearly not the People as private citizens, but as that Body politic known as the Militia of the United States. Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated.

All of this is irrelevant, and none of this constrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is unambiguously clear on this point. It is made clear by the phrase, "shall not be infringed"; which refers only to the right to keep and bear arms (not state security, not regulating militias), and that right is unquestionably the right of the people--NOT well regulated militias, NOT free states.

I will put it to you plainly again: The security of a free state is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is DEPEPENENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, our Second Amendment is clear as to which Part of the Militia of the United States necessary to the security of a free State.

No. It makes clear what KIND of militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Regardless, membership in the militia is no prerequisite for, or constraint upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Yes, there must be a difference since Only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

NO! The phrase "shall not be infringed" belongs CLEARLY to the right of the people, and NOT the well regulated militia.

The necessity for well regulated militias is NO CONSTRAINT upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is NOT a prerequisite for nor qualifier upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is IN NO WAY limited to membership or service in a well regulated militia. This is made abundantly clear by the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That has nothing to do with the natural right to acquire and posses private property, which is secured in State Constitutions. Simply claiming that is simple fallacy of composition and false Cause, since those rights are already secured in State Constitutions and available via due process, for the several citizen in the several States.

Property rights are STILL not at issue.

I made NO CLAIM regarding property rights to rebut your errors of fact and logic.

Only one Body politic is enumerated as Necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the other ones.

Irrelevant to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again. Still.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause. In any case, the People is plural not Individual. Thus, no Individual rights can be implied.

 

[LOki]

While I don't understand your reference to "composition" (I am beginning to suspect you translate your posts into English from another language), I'm not missing your point.

All of this is irrelevant, and none of this constrains the right of the people to keep and bear arms. The 2nd Amendment is unambiguously clear on this point. It is made clear by the phrase, "shall not be infringed"; which refers only to the right to keep and bear arms (not state security, not regulating militias), and that right is unquestionably the right of the people--NOT well regulated militias, NOT free states.

I will put it to you plainly again: The security of a free state is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is DEPEPENENT upon (NOT a constraint upon) the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Hence, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, our Second Amendment is clear as to which Part of the Militia of the United States necessary to the security of a free State.

No. It makes clear what KIND of militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Regardless, membership in the militia is no prerequisite for, or constraint upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Yes, there must be a difference since Only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

NO! The phrase "shall not be infringed" belongs CLEARLY to the right of the people, and NOT the well regulated militia.

The necessity for well regulated militias is NO CONSTRAINT upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is NOT a prerequisite for nor qualifier upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is IN NO WAY limited to membership or service in a well regulated militia. This is made abundantly clear by the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That has nothing to do with the natural right to acquire and posses private property, which is secured in State Constitutions. Simply claiming that is simple fallacy of composition and false Cause, since those rights are already secured in State Constitutions and available via due process, for the several citizen in the several States.

Property rights are STILL not at issue.

I made NO CLAIM regarding property rights to rebut your errors of fact and logic.

Only one Body politic is enumerated as Necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the other ones.

Irrelevant to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again. Still.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause.

You keep saying so, but you never demonstrate. Why is that, Cupcake?

The obvious answer is that you are wrong.

I have already demonstrated my full awareness and understanding of the first clause, as well as exposing your errors of fact and logic regarding said clause.

If you persist in invoking "appeal to ignorance" without demonstration, I will be obligated to conclude you're just doing so for the sake of being mendaciously obtuse.

In any case, the People is plural not Individual. Thus, no Individual rights can be implied.

"People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Individual rights are certainly not implied... they are explicitly recognized.

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, our Second Amendment is clear as to which Part of the Militia of the United States necessary to the security of a free State.

No. It makes clear what KIND of militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Regardless, membership in the militia is no prerequisite for, or constraint upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Yes, there must be a difference since Only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

NO! The phrase "shall not be infringed" belongs CLEARLY to the right of the people, and NOT the well regulated militia.

The necessity for well regulated militias is NO CONSTRAINT upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is NOT a prerequisite for nor qualifier upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is IN NO WAY limited to membership or service in a well regulated militia. This is made abundantly clear by the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That has nothing to do with the natural right to acquire and posses private property, which is secured in State Constitutions. Simply claiming that is simple fallacy of composition and false Cause, since those rights are already secured in State Constitutions and available via due process, for the several citizen in the several States.

Property rights are STILL not at issue.

I made NO CLAIM regarding property rights to rebut your errors of fact and logic.

Only one Body politic is enumerated as Necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the other ones.

Irrelevant to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again. Still.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause.

You keep saying so, but you never demonstrate. Why is that, Cupcake?

The obvious answer is that you are wrong.

I have already demonstrated my full awareness and understanding of the first clause, as well as exposing your errors of fact and logic regarding said clause.

If you persist in invoking "appeal to ignorance" without demonstration, I will be obligated to conclude you're just doing so for the sake of being mendaciously obtuse.

In any case, the People is plural not Individual. Thus, no Individual rights can be implied.

"People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Individual rights are certainly not implied... they are explicitly recognized.

How do you commute the "People" into the "Persons" via our Second Amendment, Both Militia and the People are collective, not Individual . Can you cite where (the) Persons have a right to keep and bear Arms in our Second Amendment?

 

[LOki]

No. It makes clear what KIND of militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

Regardless, membership in the militia is no prerequisite for, or constraint upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Yes, there must be a difference since Only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

NO! The phrase "shall not be infringed" belongs CLEARLY to the right of the people, and NOT the well regulated militia.

The necessity for well regulated militias is NO CONSTRAINT upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is NOT a prerequisite for nor qualifier upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is IN NO WAY limited to membership or service in a well regulated militia. This is made abundantly clear by the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That has nothing to do with the natural right to acquire and posses private property, which is secured in State Constitutions. Simply claiming that is simple fallacy of composition and false Cause, since those rights are already secured in State Constitutions and available via due process, for the several citizen in the several States.

Property rights are STILL not at issue.

I made NO CLAIM regarding property rights to rebut your errors of fact and logic.

Only one Body politic is enumerated as Necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the other ones.

Irrelevant to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again. Still.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause.

You keep saying so, but you never demonstrate. Why is that, Cupcake?

The obvious answer is that you are wrong.

I have already demonstrated my full awareness and understanding of the first clause, as well as exposing your errors of fact and logic regarding said clause.

If you persist in invoking "appeal to ignorance" without demonstration, I will be obligated to conclude you're just doing so for the sake of being mendaciously obtuse.

In any case, the People is plural not Individual. Thus, no Individual rights can be implied.

"People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Individual rights are certainly not implied... they are explicitly recognized.

How do you commute the "People" into the "Persons" via our Second Amendment, ...

I don't "commute " People" into "Persons" via our Second Amendment", standard English definitions of terms and common legal usage establishes "people" to be the plural of person.

Both Militia and the People are collective, not Individual . Can you cite where (the) Persons have a right to keep and bear Arms in our Second Amendment?

"People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

 

[Doggy]

We never had this problem till the dumbass white wimmin and stupid wigger boys voted in the half breed afrikan to the Blackhouse.It will take a grew three years to clean the black shit off the walls of our whitehouse .

 

[danielpalos]

Yes, there must be a difference since Only well regulated militias may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

NO! The phrase "shall not be infringed" belongs CLEARLY to the right of the people, and NOT the well regulated militia.

The necessity for well regulated militias is NO CONSTRAINT upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is NOT a prerequisite for nor qualifier upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is IN NO WAY limited to membership or service in a well regulated militia. This is made abundantly clear by the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

That has nothing to do with the natural right to acquire and posses private property, which is secured in State Constitutions. Simply claiming that is simple fallacy of composition and false Cause, since those rights are already secured in State Constitutions and available via due process, for the several citizen in the several States.

Property rights are STILL not at issue.

I made NO CLAIM regarding property rights to rebut your errors of fact and logic.

Only one Body politic is enumerated as Necessary to the security of a free State, regardless of All of the other ones.

Irrelevant to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again. Still.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause.

You keep saying so, but you never demonstrate. Why is that, Cupcake?

The obvious answer is that you are wrong.

I have already demonstrated my full awareness and understanding of the first clause, as well as exposing your errors of fact and logic regarding said clause.

If you persist in invoking "appeal to ignorance" without demonstration, I will be obligated to conclude you're just doing so for the sake of being mendaciously obtuse.

In any case, the People is plural not Individual. Thus, no Individual rights can be implied.

"People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Individual rights are certainly not implied... they are explicitly recognized.

How do you commute the "People" into the "Persons" via our Second Amendment, ...

I don't "commute " People" into "Persons" via our Second Amendment", standard English definitions of terms and common legal usage establishes "people" to be the plural of person.

Both Militia and the People are collective, not Individual . Can you cite where (the) Persons have a right to keep and bear Arms in our Second Amendment?

"People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, plural and collective, not Individual.

 

[LOki]

No

NO! The phrase "shall not be infringed" belongs CLEARLY to the right of the people, and NOT the well regulated militia.

The necessity for well regulated militias is NO CONSTRAINT upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is NOT a prerequisite for nor qualifier upon the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The right of the people to keep and bear arms is IN NO WAY limited to membership or service in a well regulated militia. This is made abundantly clear by the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Property rights are STILL not at issue.

I made NO CLAIM regarding property rights to rebut your errors of fact and logic.

Irrelevant to the right of the people to keep and bear arms. Again. Still.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause.

You keep saying so, but you never demonstrate. Why is that, Cupcake?

The obvious answer is that you are wrong.

I have already demonstrated my full awareness and understanding of the first clause, as well as exposing your errors of fact and logic regarding said clause.

If you persist in invoking "appeal to ignorance" without demonstration, I will be obligated to conclude you're just doing so for the sake of being mendaciously obtuse.

In any case, the People is plural not Individual. Thus, no Individual rights can be implied.

"People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Individual rights are certainly not implied... they are explicitly recognized.

How do you commute the "People" into the "Persons" via our Second Amendment, ...

I don't "commute " People" into "Persons" via our Second Amendment", standard English definitions of terms and common legal usage establishes "people" to be the plural of person.

Both Militia and the People are collective, not Individual . Can you cite where (the) Persons have a right to keep and bear Arms in our Second Amendment?

"People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, plural and collective, not Individual.

Not collective. Many individuals, individually--it's self-evident.

 

[Geaux4it]

 

[danielpalos]

No

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of the first clause.

You keep saying so, but you never demonstrate. Why is that, Cupcake?

The obvious answer is that you are wrong.

I have already demonstrated my full awareness and understanding of the first clause, as well as exposing your errors of fact and logic regarding said clause.

If you persist in invoking "appeal to ignorance" without demonstration, I will be obligated to conclude you're just doing so for the sake of being mendaciously obtuse.

In any case, the People is plural not Individual. Thus, no Individual rights can be implied.

"People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Individual rights are certainly not implied... they are explicitly recognized.

How do you commute the "People" into the "Persons" via our Second Amendment, ...

I don't "commute " People" into "Persons" via our Second Amendment", standard English definitions of terms and common legal usage establishes "people" to be the plural of person.

Both Militia and the People are collective, not Individual . Can you cite where (the) Persons have a right to keep and bear Arms in our Second Amendment?

"People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, plural and collective, not Individual.

Not collective. Many individuals, individually--it's self-evident.

Nope; both Militia and the People are plural and collective, not Individual. There is no such Thing as a Militia of one or the People of one.

Person is the term used for Individuals.

 

[LOki]

No

You keep saying so, but you never demonstrate. Why is that, Cupcake?

The obvious answer is that you are wrong.

I have already demonstrated my full awareness and understanding of the first clause, as well as exposing your errors of fact and logic regarding said clause.

If you persist in invoking "appeal to ignorance" without demonstration, I will be obligated to conclude you're just doing so for the sake of being mendaciously obtuse.

"People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Individual rights are certainly not implied... they are explicitly recognized.

How do you commute the "People" into the "Persons" via our Second Amendment, ...

I don't "commute " People" into "Persons" via our Second Amendment", standard English definitions of terms and common legal usage establishes "people" to be the plural of person.

Both Militia and the People are collective, not Individual . Can you cite where (the) Persons have a right to keep and bear Arms in our Second Amendment?

"People" is plural for individual persons, and "the People" refers to the individual sovereigns for whom the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

Yes, plural and collective, not Individual.

Not collective. Many individuals, individually--it's self-evident.

Nope; both Militia and the People are plural and collective, not Individual.

Militias and the people are composed of individuals.

There is no such Thing as a Militia of one or the People of one.

Irrelevant, and there is no such thing as a militia or the people that is not contingent upon individuals, and does not refer to the individuals that compose those respective groups.

Person is the term used for Individuals.

And people is a term used for a group of individual persons.

 

[danielpalos]

You seem to be missing the point about the Militia of the United States. There is no Appeal to Ignorance of the law; especially, this one--10USC311.

Not all of the Militia of the United States is well regulated. Only well regulated militias are expressly declared necessary to the security of a free State, should there be Any need to quibble in legal venues.

 

[timslash]

Guns aren't necessary and it doesn't matter are they legal or not!
Every problem can be solved without gun usage and in every case(except terrorist attack)police can solve it without deaths!

 

[danielpalos]

Guns aren't necessary and it doesn't matter are they legal or not!
Every problem can be solved without gun usage and in every case(except terrorist attack)police can solve it without deaths!

That is not the underlying social dilemma we are being presented with.

The problem is simply and merely, that gun lovers refuse to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.

“Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”
― G.K. Chesterton

If only, we could goad, cajole, or enjoin gun lovers to get more serious about a really really serious relationship with their republic.

 

[Ringel05]

Guns aren't necessary and it doesn't matter are they legal or not!
Every problem can be solved without gun usage and in every case(except terrorist attack)police can solve it without deaths!

 

[Ringel05]

Guns aren't necessary and it doesn't matter are they legal or not!
Every problem can be solved without gun usage and in every case(except terrorist attack)police can solve it without deaths!

That is not the underlying social dilemma we are being presented with.

The problem is simply and merely, that gun lovers refuse to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.

“Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”
― G.K. Chesterton

If only, we could goad, cajole, or enjoin gun lovers to get more serious about a really really serious relationship with their republic.

So you're implying that people who have a different idea of what the second amendment means don't love their 'country"..........?

You're kidding, right?

 

[PredFan]

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.

You are full of shit, and the SCOTUS agrees with me.

 

[PredFan]

Our Second Amendment clearly states the Intent and Purpose for Only well regulated militias having literal recourse.

Nonsense.

"The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.

That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.

Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.

The SCOTUS says you are a dumbass.

 

[PredFan]

Nonsense.

"The people" unambiguously have the right. "Well regulated militias" are dependent upon that right not being infringed.

That's what the 2nd Amendment clearly states.

Only if you appeal to ignorance of the law and the Intent and Purpose clearly established.

Only the Body politic of a Militia is declared necessary to the security of a free State, not the People as Individuals.

Nonsense.

1) You keep invoking "appeal to ignorance" ... you can't explain how your assertion is meaningful. Repetition of your meaningless assertion does not imbue it with meaning.

2) The "intent and purpose" (as you would have it) is clearly conveyed as preserving a "Free State." The security of a free state is contingent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms.

The obvious reality is that the preservation of a Free State is simply the federal interest in enumerating the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms... including (not limited to), by clear declaration, those arms required for service in a well regulated militia.

3) The "Right" that the 2nd Amendment addresses in its enumeration is NOT State security, or the regulation of militias--it is unambiguously (without ANY appeal to ignorance at all necessary) the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

To make your error clear: The security of a Free State is contingent upon a well regulated militia; a well regulated militia is dependent upon the uninfringed right of the people to keep and bear arms. It is entirely illegitimate to declare that that the right to keep and bear arms is in any manner dependent upon well regulated militias or state security.

If however, you wish to make that obviously fatuous declaration... then the unambiguous assertion the 2nd is making is that the people must have an uninfringed right to keep and bear the arms required of a well and appropriately armed and provisioned militia.

The end game in any event is that the point of the 2nd amendment is to declare--without appeal to ignorance--that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

dude, there is no appeal to ignorance of the Intent and Purpose of any law much less our Second Article of Amendment.

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.

"Appeal to ignorance" does not mean what you think it means.

It certainly does not, in any fashion, have any bearing upon the clear assertion that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

And finally, I am making no appeal to ignorance. Sorry about your luck.

Yes, it does.

No. It doesn't. As evidence by the way you're using it. You should look it up.

Or demonstrate how I am making an appeal to ignorance.

I'm not even worried that you'll make an attempt.

There is no appeal to ignorance of the law, or, the Intent and Purpose of the law.

I've made no such appeal. You keep implying that I have with your repeated application of the term, yet you fail to demonstrate how I've made such an appeal.

Despite every single opportunity you've had to do so.

Why is that, Pumpkin?

Of course it Must have the most Standing upon any bearing on any assertion regarding what is necessary to the security of a free State, any Thing to the contrary not with Standing.

I have clearly addressed this; and since you bring only a refusal to acknowledge rather than a substantive rebuttal, I am left to conclude only that you concede the validity my point with no contest.

Which causes me to wonder: Why do you then continue to deny the obvious reality that the right enumerated by the 2nd Amendment is in no way contingent upon regulated militias or state security?

I tried logic, reason and fact all to no avail, what we have here is a doctrinaire, committed in its belief the repeating of a lie often enough will ultimately convince people of its "truth".........
The best approach with such a fanatic is to ostracize by exclusion or by derision.

Or, in a thread like this one where I continually remind them that they are losing the battle.

You cannot reason with these people, just point at them, laugh, and rub it in their faces. That's what I do.

 

[danielpalos]

Guns aren't necessary and it doesn't matter are they legal or not!
Every problem can be solved without gun usage and in every case(except terrorist attack)police can solve it without deaths!

That is not the underlying social dilemma we are being presented with.

The problem is simply and merely, that gun lovers refuse to love their republic as much as they claim to love their guns.

“Men did not love Rome because she was great. She was great because they had loved her.”
― G.K. Chesterton

If only, we could goad, cajole, or enjoin gun lovers to get more serious about a really really serious relationship with their republic.

So you're implying that people who have a different idea of what the second amendment means don't love their 'country"..........?

You're kidding, right?

What different idea can you mean?

This is the only idea that matters:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.