Possible "reasons" for the Second Amendment

[Rustic]

[QU

Yeah, sure.

He graduated from Harvard Law School, was president of the Harvard Law Review, and you think he knows nothing about the Constitution..... right, so, what do you have that is better than what he has?

Given his blatant stupidity as President and the fact that he is constantly overturned by the courts on Constitutional matters it is clear that he is an affirmative action Negro that was promoted because of his race and not his knowledge.

He is the worst President ever had and he has disregarded the First and Second Amendments and he hates that one having to do with due process.

Blatant stupidity as president? Did you have a problem with Bush starting the next war, having Muslims hate the US and attack constantly putting your life in danger far more? No? So what did Obama do that was anywhere near as stupid as not only invading Iraq, but messing up the post war period so badly the world won't recover from decades at the very least?

Also, I notice you didn't reply to my question about how you're better.

How has Obama disregarded the 1st and 2nd Amendments any more than anyone else? He's a politician, they often have their own interests at heart, those of the major parties are as bad as each other.

Muslims hate freedom, that's the only reason they need for their. dumbass

 

[OKTexas]

The thread was NOT meant to change the minds of right wing, gun-lovers; rather, it was offered (as the title implies) some OTHER possible reasons for the second amendment.

I know that right wingers use these threads to show off their "extensive knowledge" of guns (some have in their homes more guns than books) .....So, carry on and for some (maybe just a handful) they well know that it is THEY who make it a hell of a lot easier for terrorists and crazies to just walk into a gun show and arm themselves to just slaughter whomever and whenever they want.

Except all it accomplished was to show exactly how illiterate you are when it comes to reading simple phrases. The reason for the 2nd is clearly defined in the phrase before the comma, how to carry it out is after the comma. Simple as that, no need for further discussion.

 

[OKTexas]

This is the issue your side has created. You believe that the gun makes the mind do things. So you want to ban the weapon

Well, since we CANNOT ban the "evil mind"....the ONLY thing left to do is to curtail the ways that evil mind can do harm........Right wingers have, instead, made it VERY easy to purchase the means for that evil mind to do what it does....and actually made the exercise of evil even easier.

Ain't it a bitch liv'n in a free society? I shed a tear for you little tyrant wannabes every day. LMFAO

 

[OKTexas]

This is the issue your side has created. You believe that the gun makes the mind do things. So you want to ban the weapon

Well, since we CANNOT ban the "evil mind"....the ONLY thing left to do is to curtail the ways that evil mind can do harm........Right wingers have, instead, made it VERY easy to purchase the means for that evil mind to do what it does....and actually made the exercise of evil even easier.

It's so easy to expose how asinine your logic(sic) really is.

Most Republicans and Conservatives are anti-recreational drugs. We think drugs destroy lives on a much larger scale than guns do. So, we support drug laws and even bans on recreational drugs. Yet, banned or not, those with "evil minds" can still get their hands on their drugs of choice in any town and on any given day. And we who support the bans don't pretend otherwise.

The difference is that we don't fool ourselves into thinking that laws will rid the world of drug use and availability. We understand that drug use will always continue - even if it is totally banned. YOU and your ilk on the other hand actually believe that you can rid the world of guns and prevent murderers from MURDERING people with laws alone. As if the laws against MURDER were not enough of a deterrent already.

If you actually believe that illegal guns will be any less prevalent after a gun ban than drugs have been in the decades since drugs were banned? You are a fucking fool.

Two wars we will never win, the war on drugs and the war on poverty, the government imports adequate supplies daily.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The intent was for the populace to be armed, but in state militias. And at that time any large group of men could be armed with the same technology that the best army on Earth was armed with, muskets and cannons. There was parity in weaponry. At that time this idea of an armed militia was viable and functional.

Today the public is banned from owning 99% of modern weapons that are available which gun owners today are just fine with because this is what they've grown up with. There is no parity now between the weapons that the public owns and the weapons that even the weakest army on Earth owns. The days of 'minutemen' ended in the 1890's. The only function a publicly owned weapon has today is hunting or self protection. The US population could never dream of defeating our own military in a war. We'd lose in a week. A harsh reality gun owners just can't own.

 

[Flash]

[QU

Yeah, sure.

He graduated from Harvard Law School, was president of the Harvard Law Review, and you think he knows nothing about the Constitution..... right, so, what do you have that is better than what he has?

Given his blatant stupidity as President and the fact that he is constantly overturned by the courts on Constitutional matters it is clear that he is an affirmative action Negro that was promoted because of his race and not his knowledge.

He is the worst President ever had and he has disregarded the First and Second Amendments and he hates that one having to do with due process.

Blatant stupidity as president? Did you have a problem with Bush starting the next war, having Muslims hate the US and attack constantly putting your life in danger far more? No? So what did Obama do that was anywhere near as stupid as not only invading Iraq, but messing up the post war period so badly the world won't recover from decades at the very least?

Also, I notice you didn't reply to my question about how you're better.

How has Obama disregarded the 1st and 2nd Amendments any more than anyone else? He's a politician, they often have their own interests at heart, those of the major parties are as bad as each other.

Do you have a problem with that idiot Obama fighting the Iraq war for three years, calling it a success and then managing to lose it? How about the dumbass Commander in Chief escalating the war in Afghanistan and then almost eight years later having nothing to show for it but dead American troops? Can you explain to me how Obama managed to bomb Libya and fuck up the country so bad?

Being a Moon Bat you will not be able to help yourself to vote for Crooked Hillary that voted for the invasion of Iraq so stop a hypocritical jackass about Iraq.

Do you have a problem with that idiot Obama having a piss poor economic growth, an increase in poverty, a decrease in family income, an increase in the number of people on welfare, an increase in the divide between the rich and the poor, the flood of illegals and a dismal foreign policy that is the laughing stock of the world?

Obama hates the concept of religious freedom unless it applies to the fucking Muslim terrorists. Even the Sistesr of the Poor have sued his ass for the restoration of religious freedom. The Tea Party will tell you how he has used the IRS to stifle the freedom of speech. He has been on a constant attack on the right to keep and bear arm and only the US Congress has stopped the bastard from gutting the Liberty to keep and bear arms.

You were an idiot if voted for him and I suspect you will make the same stupid mistake again this fall when you once again stick your Moon Bat head up your Libtard ass and vote for a lying corrupt incompetent dishonest mean old bitch.

 

[Chuz Life]

This is the issue your side has created. You believe that the gun makes the mind do things. So you want to ban the weapon

Well, since we CANNOT ban the "evil mind"....the ONLY thing left to do is to curtail the ways that evil mind can do harm........Right wingers have, instead, made it VERY easy to purchase the means for that evil mind to do what it does....and actually made the exercise of evil even easier.

It's so easy to expose how asinine your logic(sic) really is.

Most Republicans and Conservatives are anti-recreational drugs. We think drugs destroy lives on a much larger scale than guns do. So, we support drug laws and even bans on recreational drugs. Yet, banned or not, those with "evil minds" can still get their hands on their drugs of choice in any town and on any given day. And we who support the bans don't pretend otherwise.

The difference is that we don't fool ourselves into thinking that laws will rid the world of drug use and availability. We understand that drug use will always continue - even if it is totally banned. YOU and your ilk on the other hand actually believe that you can rid the world of guns and prevent murderers from MURDERING people with laws alone. As if the laws against MURDER were not enough of a deterrent already.

If you actually believe that illegal guns will be any less prevalent after a gun ban than drugs have been in the decades since drugs were banned? You are a fucking fool.

Two wars we will never win, the war on drugs and the war on poverty, the government imports adequate supplies daily.

I think the war on drugs is one of those wars that is fought without an expectation that it will ever be completely "won." Kind of like the war that scientists and other medical agencies are fighting against cancer.

Do we end the war on cancer - simply because we can't be 100% certain that it will ever be "won" or winnable? I don't think so.

 

[OKTexas]

This is the issue your side has created. You believe that the gun makes the mind do things. So you want to ban the weapon

Well, since we CANNOT ban the "evil mind"....the ONLY thing left to do is to curtail the ways that evil mind can do harm........Right wingers have, instead, made it VERY easy to purchase the means for that evil mind to do what it does....and actually made the exercise of evil even easier.

It's so easy to expose how asinine your logic(sic) really is.

Most Republicans and Conservatives are anti-recreational drugs. We think drugs destroy lives on a much larger scale than guns do. So, we support drug laws and even bans on recreational drugs. Yet, banned or not, those with "evil minds" can still get their hands on their drugs of choice in any town and on any given day. And we who support the bans don't pretend otherwise.

The difference is that we don't fool ourselves into thinking that laws will rid the world of drug use and availability. We understand that drug use will always continue - even if it is totally banned. YOU and your ilk on the other hand actually believe that you can rid the world of guns and prevent murderers from MURDERING people with laws alone. As if the laws against MURDER were not enough of a deterrent already.

If you actually believe that illegal guns will be any less prevalent after a gun ban than drugs have been in the decades since drugs were banned? You are a fucking fool.

Two wars we will never win, the war on drugs and the war on poverty, the government imports adequate supplies daily.

I think the war on drugs is one of those wars that is fought without an expectation that it will ever be completely "won." Kind of like the war that scientists and other medical agencies are fighting against cancer.

Do we end the war on cancer - simply because we can't be 100% certain that it will ever be "won" or winnable? I don't think so.

Sure the war on drugs can be won, it only takes the will, there too much in it for the government to ever win it, just think how many bureaucrats depend on it for their livelihood.

 

[Chuz Life]

The intent was for the populace to be armed, but in state militias. And at that time any large group of men could be armed with the same technology that the best army on Earth was armed with, muskets and cannons. There was parity in weaponry. At that time this idea of an armed militia was viable and functional.

Today the public is banned from owning 99% of modern weapons that are available which gun owners today are just fine with because this is what they've grown up with. There is no parity now between the weapons that the public owns and the weapons that even the weakest army on Earth owns. The days of 'minutemen' ended in the 1890's. The only function a publicly owned weapon has today is hunting or self protection. The US population could never dream of defeating our own military in a war. We'd lose in a week. A harsh reality gun owners just can't own.

You obviously have no concept of what a "butterknife" squad is.

What the fuck is a "butterknife squad?" you may ask.

The butterknife squad is a concept/ strategy that is built around the idea of using what you have to get what you need or want.

I will explain how it works but let me first say that while there is HUGE disparity between the weapons of we "the people" and the weapons of our military. . . if the shit ever really hits the fan, we "the people" knows full well that some significant portion of our military will be making themselves available to the cause of fighting the tyrannical government (as the founding fathers drew help from France and others) and our defecting soldiers will bring their weapons and knowledge with them as they join the efforts.

Now back to the "butterknife squad." Imagine a very small militant group that is running on bare minimal supplies and an un-armed new member shows up to join the fight.

Having no spare or extra weapons for him, they hand him a butterknife (it's a metaphor stay with me) and the new member says "what the hell am I going to do with this?"

The group tells him to go out and use that butterknife to get himself a gun.

If the guy comes back with the butterknife and a new gun of his own. . . they then hand the knife to the next new guy who shows up without a weapon. . . and so on.

If he doesn't come back? Then all you really lost was the butterknife.

The principle is simple. You use what you've got to get what you need.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[QU

Yeah, sure.

He graduated from Harvard Law School, was president of the Harvard Law Review, and you think he knows nothing about the Constitution..... right, so, what do you have that is better than what he has?

Given his blatant stupidity as President and the fact that he is constantly overturned by the courts on Constitutional matters it is clear that he is an affirmative action Negro that was promoted because of his race and not his knowledge.

He is the worst President ever had and he has disregarded the First and Second Amendments and he hates that one having to do with due process.

Blatant stupidity as president? Did you have a problem with Bush starting the next war, having Muslims hate the US and attack constantly putting your life in danger far more? No? So what did Obama do that was anywhere near as stupid as not only invading Iraq, but messing up the post war period so badly the world won't recover from decades at the very least?

[QU

Yeah, sure.

He graduated from Harvard Law School, was president of the Harvard Law Review, and you think he knows nothing about the Constitution..... right, so, what do you have that is better than what he has?

Given his blatant stupidity as President and the fact that he is constantly overturned by the courts on Constitutional matters it is clear that he is an affirmative action Negro that was promoted because of his race and not his knowledge.

He is the worst President ever had and he has disregarded the First and Second Amendments and he hates that one having to do with due process.

Blatant stupidity as president? Did you have a problem with Bush starting the next war, having Muslims hate the US and attack constantly putting your life in danger far more? No? So what did Obama do that was anywhere near as stupid as not only invading Iraq, but messing up the post war period so badly the world won't recover from decades at the very least?

Also, I notice you didn't reply to my question about how you're better.

How has Obama disregarded the 1st and 2nd Amendments any more than anyone else? He's a politician, they often have their own interests at heart, those of the major parties are as bad as each other.

Do you have a problem with that idiot Obama fighting the Iraq war for three years, calling it a success and then managing to lose it? How about the dumbass Commander in Chief escalating the war in Afghanistan and then almost eight years later having nothing to show for it but dead American troops? Can you explain to me how Obama managed to bomb Libya and fuck up the country so bad?

Being a Moon Bat you will not be able to help yourself to vote for Crooked Hillary that voted for the invasion of Iraq so stop a hypocritical jackass about Iraq.

Do you have a problem with that idiot Obama having a piss poor economic growth, an increase in poverty, a decrease in family income, an increase in the number of people on welfare, an increase in the divide between the rich and the poor, the flood of illegals and a dismal foreign policy that is the laughing stock of the world?

Obama hates the concept of religious freedom unless it applies to the fucking Muslim terrorists. Even the Sistesr of the Poor have sued his ass for the restoration of religious freedom. The Tea Party will tell you how he has used the IRS to stifle the freedom of speech. He has been on a constant attack on the right to keep and bear arm and only the US Congress has stopped the bastard from gutting the Liberty to keep and bear arms.

You were an idiot if voted for him and I suspect you will make the same stupid mistake again this fall when you once again stick your Moon Bat head up your Libtard ass and vote for a lying corrupt incompetent dishonest mean old bitch.

So, your only answer is to play the partisan game with me huh? Well, I'm not partisan. I didn't vote for Obama and I won't be voting for Hillary or Trump.

Do I have a problem with Obama bombing Libya? Yes I do. It was a stupid decision, made for political reasons rather than reasons that were right.

Do I have a problem with what Obama did in Iraq and Afghanistan? Iraq no, he said he'd pull the troops out, he did that. Afghanistan? Yes, he should have left.

However, compared to what Bush did, Obama didn't do that much.

You say Obama hates the concept of religious freedom unless it applies to Muslim terrorists. Well, you're wrong. But I'm going to ask you to PROVE your point, otherwise I will just discard your views that aren't based on anything much.

 

[Chuz Life]

This is the issue your side has created. You believe that the gun makes the mind do things. So you want to ban the weapon

Well, since we CANNOT ban the "evil mind"....the ONLY thing left to do is to curtail the ways that evil mind can do harm........Right wingers have, instead, made it VERY easy to purchase the means for that evil mind to do what it does....and actually made the exercise of evil even easier.

It's so easy to expose how asinine your logic(sic) really is.

Most Republicans and Conservatives are anti-recreational drugs. We think drugs destroy lives on a much larger scale than guns do. So, we support drug laws and even bans on recreational drugs. Yet, banned or not, those with "evil minds" can still get their hands on their drugs of choice in any town and on any given day. And we who support the bans don't pretend otherwise.

The difference is that we don't fool ourselves into thinking that laws will rid the world of drug use and availability. We understand that drug use will always continue - even if it is totally banned. YOU and your ilk on the other hand actually believe that you can rid the world of guns and prevent murderers from MURDERING people with laws alone. As if the laws against MURDER were not enough of a deterrent already.

If you actually believe that illegal guns will be any less prevalent after a gun ban than drugs have been in the decades since drugs were banned? You are a fucking fool.

Two wars we will never win, the war on drugs and the war on poverty, the government imports adequate supplies daily.

I think the war on drugs is one of those wars that is fought without an expectation that it will ever be completely "won." Kind of like the war that scientists and other medical agencies are fighting against cancer.

Do we end the war on cancer - simply because we can't be 100% certain that it will ever be "won" or winnable? I don't think so.

Sure the war on drugs can be won, it only takes the will, there too much in it for the government to ever win it, just think how many bureaucrats depend on it for their livelihood.

I disagree.

I've witnessed too much of what drugs can do once a person is addicted. There is nothing government can ever do from Washington that is going to affect change for a drug addict on the streets who doesn't want to change him or herself.

 

[Chuz Life]

And what about when the State and the Federal Governments are (tyrannically) in collusion with each other against the "people?"

What then?

Well then you're fucked, aren't you.

If you've managed to sit idly by and have done nothing up until this point, then there's a problem anyway.

Then the people can take up arms against the govt. Even with state governments appointing officers it's still ILLEGAL to fight against the Federal Government. So, if it's you v. state and federal governments, it's still illegal and doesn't really matter anyway.

What happens is, like the Civil War, the strongest wins.

The 2nd amendment was the founder's way to insure the people's rights as individuals to keep and to bear arms so that if and when the time comes for us to "unfuck" ourselves against a tyrannical government. . . We can.

Yes, I know.

.

Great.

Now explain how allowing the "bad government " to appoint the officers of the militia and dictate which weapons can and can not be used is a reasonable means to that end.

BUMPED

Still waiting.

 

[OKTexas]

Well, since we CANNOT ban the "evil mind"....the ONLY thing left to do is to curtail the ways that evil mind can do harm........Right wingers have, instead, made it VERY easy to purchase the means for that evil mind to do what it does....and actually made the exercise of evil even easier.

It's so easy to expose how asinine your logic(sic) really is.

Most Republicans and Conservatives are anti-recreational drugs. We think drugs destroy lives on a much larger scale than guns do. So, we support drug laws and even bans on recreational drugs. Yet, banned or not, those with "evil minds" can still get their hands on their drugs of choice in any town and on any given day. And we who support the bans don't pretend otherwise.

The difference is that we don't fool ourselves into thinking that laws will rid the world of drug use and availability. We understand that drug use will always continue - even if it is totally banned. YOU and your ilk on the other hand actually believe that you can rid the world of guns and prevent murderers from MURDERING people with laws alone. As if the laws against MURDER were not enough of a deterrent already.

If you actually believe that illegal guns will be any less prevalent after a gun ban than drugs have been in the decades since drugs were banned? You are a fucking fool.

Two wars we will never win, the war on drugs and the war on poverty, the government imports adequate supplies daily.

I think the war on drugs is one of those wars that is fought without an expectation that it will ever be completely "won." Kind of like the war that scientists and other medical agencies are fighting against cancer.

Do we end the war on cancer - simply because we can't be 100% certain that it will ever be "won" or winnable? I don't think so.

Sure the war on drugs can be won, it only takes the will, there too much in it for the government to ever win it, just think how many bureaucrats depend on it for their livelihood.

I disagree.

I've witnessed too much of what drugs can do once a person is addicted. There is nothing government can ever do from Washington that is going to affect change for a drug addict on the streets who doesn't want to change him or herself.

Sure there is if you have the balls. Buying and using drugs is a crime, if a person dies during the commission of a crime who the hell cares. If I had the power, I'd put out on every major news source that all drugs on the street have been tainted with cyanide, Then I would take all the drugs that have been seized and lace them with cyanide and put them back on the streets for sale and start tagging and bagging. The people who would buy them knowing they will likely die, deserve exactly that, the recreational users would stop. Demand would dry up and the cartels would die. It's a win win. You just have to stop coddling criminals that would shoot you at an ATM for 40 bucks.

 

[2aguy]

Many historians and biographers have long tried to find a reason as to the why Founders chose to include within the Bill Of Rights, the most controversial amendment regarding the right for everyone to be armed. One must look at some of the papers, diaries and letters written by these Founders to discern the reason why the amendment was included….and is not causing so much discord.

The first issue regards whether the Founders wanted an “armed militia” to fight off an oppressive government….and for that, an objective observer would argue that in forming such a government, the Founders could not really foresee that what they THEMSELVES were forming in a government, could really prompt that government’s citizens to revolt against it.

So, what are the possible reasons for the second amendment, and do these other reasons make a bit more sense:

Well, as written by several of the Founders, a standing army was just too damn expensive to keep (and pay, and feed, and arm, and clothe)….So, arming common citizens, especially in the vast expanses of the new country, made a heck of a lot more sense.

Additionally, arming common citizens had some other “benefits” for the rather young country. For example:

1. There were always threats that those pesky Brits may want the colonies back

2. There was also the constant threat that those Natives who constantly saw their lands taken over by farmers and colonists may launch uprisings and the federal government had not the will, resources and/or capabilities to defend against such uprisings.

3. Finally, we must not also forget that we were a country of slave owners, and the threat of revolts by the slaves was also a key reason to encourage colonists to remain armed.

The world was full of slave owners.....the Africans and Europeans brought black slaves to the new world...slavery as already here with the Indians...

 

[Chuz Life]

It's so easy to expose how asinine your logic(sic) really is.

Most Republicans and Conservatives are anti-recreational drugs. We think drugs destroy lives on a much larger scale than guns do. So, we support drug laws and even bans on recreational drugs. Yet, banned or not, those with "evil minds" can still get their hands on their drugs of choice in any town and on any given day. And we who support the bans don't pretend otherwise.

The difference is that we don't fool ourselves into thinking that laws will rid the world of drug use and availability. We understand that drug use will always continue - even if it is totally banned. YOU and your ilk on the other hand actually believe that you can rid the world of guns and prevent murderers from MURDERING people with laws alone. As if the laws against MURDER were not enough of a deterrent already.

If you actually believe that illegal guns will be any less prevalent after a gun ban than drugs have been in the decades since drugs were banned? You are a fucking fool.

Two wars we will never win, the war on drugs and the war on poverty, the government imports adequate supplies daily.

I think the war on drugs is one of those wars that is fought without an expectation that it will ever be completely "won." Kind of like the war that scientists and other medical agencies are fighting against cancer.

Do we end the war on cancer - simply because we can't be 100% certain that it will ever be "won" or winnable? I don't think so.

Sure the war on drugs can be won, it only takes the will, there too much in it for the government to ever win it, just think how many bureaucrats depend on it for their livelihood.

I disagree.

I've witnessed too much of what drugs can do once a person is addicted. There is nothing government can ever do from Washington that is going to affect change for a drug addict on the streets who doesn't want to change him or herself.

Sure there is if you have the balls. Buying and using drugs is a crime, if a person dies during the commission of a crime who the hell cares. If I had the power, I'd put out on every major news source that all drugs on the street have been tainted with cyanide, Then I would take all the drugs that have been seized and lace them with cyanide and put them back on the streets for sale and start tagging and bagging. The people who would buy them knowing they will likely die, deserve exactly that, the recreational users would stop. Demand would dry up and the cartels would die. It's a win win. You just have to stop coddling criminals that would shoot you at an ATM for 40 bucks.

Yeah you are right. . . .

no-one knows how to grow or to "cook up" their own.

You got it all figured out.

(sarcasm intended)

 

[2aguy]

Your reasons 1, 2 and 3 boil down to the same reason we need it today, Self Defense,

Meaning that we still fear the Brits invading, Indian uprising and slave revolts, correct???

ask Mexican citizens...many parts of modern Mexico are quite nice....and then.....you have the areas controlled by the drug cartels where the Mexican government agents, police and military, are allies with the drug cartels....unarmed Mexican citizens are slaughtered by the cartels, the police and the military......those Mexican citizens understand the 2nd Amendment better than you do........

 

[2aguy]

ok the well regulated militia in the first half,we know what that means.....so who were the "people" mentioned in the second half?....because they are the ones mentioned who the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.....

The semantics for this poorly phrased amendment boils down to this....A "militia" is not a lifeless entity...it is indeed comprised of "people".

The intent of the O/P was not to deride the 2nd amendment....but only to offer some plausible other explanation for its inclusion, rather than having the NRA define it for us.

You jitters keep bringing up the NRA.......I know that I don't use anything by them except for stories from The Armed Citizen...in fact...they don't really put out talking points where anyone would hear them........

The only reason you bring them up is they keep you from taking our guns....

 

[jasonnfree]

[Q

An ar15 is just a sporting rifle just like any other. Shithead
Barry is no friend to this country...

Hussein is a friend to the Muslims and a friend to the welfare queens and illegals and other despicable elements in the US but no friend to America. He has done more damage to this country than any foreign enemy.

Translation. Obama is interested in upholding the US Constitution, for example, the freedom of religion.

Islam is the enemy of America's major religion, which is Christianity. So why Obama's rush to import as many muslims, and no christians, into this country as possible, under the refugee program?

But American isn't a Christian country officially. America has freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution.

So, many people are Christians and hate Muslims. So what? Some Christians are also tolerant and don't hate all Muslims.

Well, let's be grateful America was a Christian nation for a couple hundred years anyway, since it became the greatest country in the world. I don't think I'd like America if muslims had been in charge all this time. Look what they haven't accomplished in all the countries where they were running the show. I consider islam an anti religion. An Abrahamic rogue offshoot out to destroy any other religion in it's path.

 

[OKTexas]

Two wars we will never win, the war on drugs and the war on poverty, the government imports adequate supplies daily.

I think the war on drugs is one of those wars that is fought without an expectation that it will ever be completely "won." Kind of like the war that scientists and other medical agencies are fighting against cancer.

Do we end the war on cancer - simply because we can't be 100% certain that it will ever be "won" or winnable? I don't think so.

Sure the war on drugs can be won, it only takes the will, there too much in it for the government to ever win it, just think how many bureaucrats depend on it for their livelihood.

I disagree.

I've witnessed too much of what drugs can do once a person is addicted. There is nothing government can ever do from Washington that is going to affect change for a drug addict on the streets who doesn't want to change him or herself.

Sure there is if you have the balls. Buying and using drugs is a crime, if a person dies during the commission of a crime who the hell cares. If I had the power, I'd put out on every major news source that all drugs on the street have been tainted with cyanide, Then I would take all the drugs that have been seized and lace them with cyanide and put them back on the streets for sale and start tagging and bagging. The people who would buy them knowing they will likely die, deserve exactly that, the recreational users would stop. Demand would dry up and the cartels would die. It's a win win. You just have to stop coddling criminals that would shoot you at an ATM for 40 bucks.

Yeah you are right. . . .

no-one knows how to grow or to "cook up" their own.

You got it all figured out.

(sarcasm intended)

So tell us oh wise one, how many addicts grow and process their own cocaine or heroin? No hurry I'll wait.

 

[frigidweirdo]

[Q

An ar15 is just a sporting rifle just like any other. Shithead
Barry is no friend to this country...

Hussein is a friend to the Muslims and a friend to the welfare queens and illegals and other despicable elements in the US but no friend to America. He has done more damage to this country than any foreign enemy.

Translation. Obama is interested in upholding the US Constitution, for example, the freedom of religion.

Islam is the enemy of America's major religion, which is Christianity. So why Obama's rush to import as many muslims, and no christians, into this country as possible, under the refugee program?

But American isn't a Christian country officially. America has freedom of religion enshrined in the Constitution.

So, many people are Christians and hate Muslims. So what? Some Christians are also tolerant and don't hate all Muslims.

Well, let's be grateful America was a Christian nation for a couple hundred years anyway, since it became the greatest country in the world. I don't think I'd like America if muslims had been in charge all this time. Look what they haven't accomplished in all the countries where they were running the show. I consider islam an anti religion. An Abrahamic rogue offshoot out to destroy any other religion in it's path.

I don't like Islam either. However I don't like Christianity, Judaism, Buddhism and all the other religions either.

Islam may well have spread to harsh countries which will inevitably struggle.

Had the South separated from the North in 1865 maybe the South would be much poorer than the north, like Mexico for example. Sometimes the conditions of the country are what really matter.

Africa is Africa, it doesn't really matter if it's Muslim Africa or Christian Africa, it's still messed up. In fact some of the most stable places are places like Morocco which are Muslim.

There's nothing worse than people seeing one thing and using this as pure fact and then stating they've come to a conclusion based on one fact.