Second amendment more important?

[M14 Shooter]

Waiting for what?

For you to sack up and defnd your claims.

-- Show how the 'clear text' of the 2nd amendment means what you say it means.
-- Show how your citation of numbers of people killed supports the idea that -simple/posession/ownership- of a firearm causes harm or creates immediate danger.

First you cut my post in half.
And second you essentially ignore the links and data I provide.
If you aren't going to consider what I post..then really..there's no point in going on here.
Good day.

Translation:
You know you cannot support your claims and so you're running away like the coward we all know that you are.
Surprised it took this long.

 

[The T]

For you to sack up and defnd your claims.

-- Show how the 'clear text' of the 2nd amendment means what you say it means.
-- Show how your citation of numbers of people killed supports the idea that -simple/posession/ownership- of a firearm causes harm or creates immediate danger.

And as a matter of course? He will forget to factor in the responsibility that the majority of gun owners practice.

Looks pretty responsible..you bet..

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aDBPvuPkjD4"]Bulletproof Vest Test Goes Wrong - YouTube[/ame]

You exude stupidity on display. Thank Me.

 

[candycorn]

If you "don't know", where do you get the idea that "If we banned automatic weapons, more Americans would be alive today"?

1: You arent a competent judge of what others "need" while exercising their rights
2: The ability to exercise a right is not based on somone's subjective definition of a "need" to do so.

True. True on both counts.
Common sense says otherwise.

Common sense is based on truth, which you have alsready excluded from your position.
Thus, your position cannot qualify as common sense,

Perhaps common sense is more common in some than others.

 

[M14 Shooter]

True. True on both counts.
Common sense says otherwise.

Common sense is based on truth, which you have alsready excluded from your position.
Thus, your position cannot qualify as common sense,

Perhaps common sense is more common in some than others.

Nothing here changes the truth of what I said.
:yawn:

 

[kwc57]

Not.

You are FREE to say ANYTHING you want.

You are FREE to OWN a gun.

How you USE them can have consequences.

You should not be restricted in your speech or gun ownership. However, if you use them in an illegal manner, their are laws and consequences to how you used them. The restriction is in the USE, not the right.

There are markedly distinct difference between guns and words.

Guns can inflict great bodily harm or kill.

Words? Not so much.

So you won't mind if I start spreading the word that you are a rapist and pedophile? That wouldn't cause you any harm?

I'll assume that since you don't want to argue my point, you concede that words can indeed cause great harm.

 

[M14 Shooter]

There are markedly distinct difference between guns and words.

Guns can inflict great bodily harm or kill.

Words? Not so much.

So you won't mind if I start spreading the word that you are a rapist and pedophile? That wouldn't cause you any harm?

I'll assume that since you don't want to argue my point, you concede that words can indeed cause great harm.

She conceded -all- the points she's tried to make by refusing to defend them.
As per the norm.

 

[Luddly Neddite]

Absolutely true but way too much for rw's to "grasp".

As to the question, is the second amendment more important?

Yes, it is.

Its certainly more important than the lives of the 24-25 people who are killed with guns every single day.

Would it make you feel better if they were thrown off of tall buildings?

Idiotic response.

What rw's cannot GRASP is that President Obama is not pushing for gun control while Etch A Sketch is BOTH for and against it. He does not currently have a position because Norquist/Rove haven't told him what his position is.

That certainly doesn't stop the NRA, the Rs and the sheeple rw's from lying about the president.

 

[The T]

There are markedly distinct difference between guns and words.

Guns can inflict great bodily harm or kill.

Words? Not so much.

So you won't mind if I start spreading the word that you are a rapist and pedophile? That wouldn't cause you any harm?

I'll assume that since you don't want to argue my point, you concede that words can indeed cause great harm.

There's something to be said of speech and the old axiom that one cannot go into a crowded theatre and yell "FIRE!", where no such situation exists and expect not to be held responsible for the chaos, injury that ensues.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So you won't mind if I start spreading the word that you are a rapist and pedophile? That wouldn't cause you any harm?

I'll assume that since you don't want to argue my point, you concede that words can indeed cause great harm.

There's something to be said of speech and the old axiom that one cannot go into a crowded theatre and yell "FIRE!", where no such situation exists and expect not to be held responsible for the chaos, injury that ensues.

Well sure -- that's the 'placing people in clear and present danger' I spoke of.

Libel, slander and fire in a theater do not fall under the protection of the 1st amendment because they cause harm / put people in imediate danger; I have yet to see anyone show how simple ownership/posession of a firearm does either of those things.

This addresses the OP in full, BTW.
Again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Absolutely true but way too much for rw's to "grasp".

As to the question, is the second amendment more important?

Yes, it is.

Its certainly more important than the lives of the 24-25 people who are killed with guns every single day.

Would it make you feel better if they were thrown off of tall buildings?

Idiotic response.
What rw's cannot GRASP is that President Obama is not pushing for gun control...

Off topic, trolling response.
Enjoy your continued irrelevance.

 

[The T]

I'll assume that since you don't want to argue my point, you concede that words can indeed cause great harm.

There's something to be said of speech and the old axiom that one cannot go into a crowded theatre and yell "FIRE!", where no such situation exists and expect not to be held responsible for the chaos, injury that ensues.

Well sure -- that's the 'placing people in clear and present danger' I spoke of.

Libel, slander and fire in a theater do not fall under the protection of the 1st amendment because they cause harm / put people in imediate danger; I have yet to see anyone show how simple ownership/posession of a firearm does either of those things.

This addresses the OP in full, BTW.
Again.

How many times do we have to educate the left on thier folly?

 

[M14 Shooter]

There's something to be said of speech and the old axiom that one cannot go into a crowded theatre and yell "FIRE!", where no such situation exists and expect not to be held responsible for the chaos, injury that ensues.

Well sure -- that's the 'placing people in clear and present danger' I spoke of.

Libel, slander and fire in a theater do not fall under the protection of the 1st amendment because they cause harm / put people in imediate danger; I have yet to see anyone show how simple ownership/posession of a firearm does either of those things.

This addresses the OP in full, BTW.
Again.

How many times do we have to educate the left on thier folly?

Their is willfull intellectual dishonesty -- they're intentionally wrong because they refuse to accept the truth.

 

[The T]

Well sure -- that's the 'placing people in clear and present danger' I spoke of.

Libel, slander and fire in a theater do not fall under the protection of the 1st amendment because they cause harm / put people in imediate danger; I have yet to see anyone show how simple ownership/posession of a firearm does either of those things.

This addresses the OP in full, BTW.
Again.

How many times do we have to educate the left on thier folly?

Their is willfull intellectual dishonesty -- they're intentionally wrong because they refuse to accept the truth.

And the truth has no agenda...knows no time limits.

 

[Liability]

Don't forget the "well regulated" part.

Yes the militia is indeed well regulated to prevent its use in a tyrannical fashion or to promote un-Constitutional ideas by force.

Our "militia" is now known as the National Guard.

Not really.

The militias of which the Constitution spoke included the various STATE militias which the Second Amendment contemplated, in part, to assure that the strong central FEDERAL government could not overstep its bounds.

 

[Oddball]

Don't forget the "well regulated" part.

Yes the militia is indeed well regulated to prevent its use in a tyrannical fashion or to promote un-Constitutional ideas by force.

Our "militia" is now known as the National Guard.

Wrong.

They're considered federal DoD personnel.

Militias are entirely volunteer organizations, which were organized and commanded at the local and state levels.

There have been very few, if any, traditionally organized militias since about 1865 or thereabouts.

 

[Oddball]

So you are saying that restrictions are necessary? Or not?

Not.

You are FREE to say ANYTHING you want.

You are FREE to OWN a gun.

How you USE them can have consequences.

You should not be restricted in your speech or gun ownership. However, if you use them in an illegal manner, their are laws and consequences to how you used them. The restriction is in the USE, not the right.

There are markedly distinct difference between guns and words.

Guns can inflict great bodily harm or kill.

Words? Not so much.

Shouting "fire" in a crowded theater or inciting a riot can be just as deadly.

The fail is strong within you.

 

[PratchettFan]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

Nobody is arguing there should be no limits.

 

[francoHFW]

NO background checksor limits online, many gun shows and in several states.

 

[M14 Shooter]

NO background checksor limits online, many gun shows and in several states.

Hogwash.
No matter what state you live in, there's a background check.
No matter what gun show you go to, when you buy from a dealer, there's a background check.
No matter where you buy on-line, before you can pick up your gun from the dealer facilitating the transfer, there's a background check.

 

[Lakhota]

Is the second amendment more imprtant than the first, which guarantees speech?

There are all kinds of limits on speech. You may not incite slander defraud etc by use of speech.

Why are limits on guns, not acceptable?

Can you grasp the meaning of the word infringed......

Have we anyway?


Do you read anything other then the DNC website?

Infringed? You mean like with this Revolutionary War musket that was in use when the Second Amendment was written?