Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The real retard in the room is the one who failed to read both the PLCAA and the Wikipedia article about it.Then you need only provide title and citation for this"...law that immunizes gun sellers and manufacturers from class action and individual lawsuits."Nonsense. Gun manufacturers and sellers are still liable for their criminal acts. Do some research.
I have. they aren't. YOu pretty much have to catch them openly breaking the law to get any kind of action against them.
I have no fear that you will. It doesn't exist.
Are you like the Norse God of Retards?
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Are you also going to allow lawsuits against Chevrolet when somebody uses one of their cars to run over a nagging ex-husband?2) Allow lawsuits against gun manufacturers.
(Do these people even realize how ridiculous their "solutions" are?)
Cars aren't designed to kill people.
Guns are.
so the comparison that you gun nuts compensating for tiny peckers keep throwing out there is... silly.
Let's look at the facts
There is a criminal element amongst us
My wife and I are old and weak.
I have a tiny pecker.
We have a right to life and to defend the same
We are going to buy firearms . either from our neighborhood gun store while we can or from a Mexican Drug Cartel.
And there is nothing you low life son of bitch can do about it.
.
Gee, and all we've heard from the beginning of time is that the gun nuts are 100% law abiding citizens. I guess not.
Reasonable compromise. We have to get more serious about not allowing dumbasses to own firearms. We also have to get more serious about not allowing dumbasses to give other dumbasses and children firearms. There has to be stricter guidelines and punishments for those who give others and especially children, firearms.
Punishing for actions that infringe upon the life, liberty or property of others, I got no problem with. Prior restraint laws that limit one's freedom because of what they might, maybe do, not so much.
Na, not really...Reasonable compromise. We have to get more serious about not allowing dumbasses to own firearms. We also have to get more serious about not allowing dumbasses to give other dumbasses and children firearms. There has to be stricter guidelines and punishments for those who give others and especially children, firearms.
Too many dumbasses out there. There has to be a threat of harsh punishment to those who are irresponsible with firearms. You give a firearm to someone or especially a child, you are responsible. And i mean serious prison time.
I give firearms to children all the time...kinda hard to teach them to shoot if all they can do is dry fire with a broomstick.
I taught my girls to shoot safely before they could even ride a bike...Na, not really...Reasonable compromise. We have to get more serious about not allowing dumbasses to own firearms. We also have to get more serious about not allowing dumbasses to give other dumbasses and children firearms. There has to be stricter guidelines and punishments for those who give others and especially children, firearms.
Too many dumbasses out there. There has to be a threat of harsh punishment to those who are irresponsible with firearms. You give a firearm to someone or especially a child, you are responsible. And i mean serious prison time.
I give firearms to children all the time...kinda hard to teach them to shoot if all they can do is dry fire with a broomstick.
Then it's all on you. You have to be held accountable. You chose to hand a child a firearm. It is all on you.
I taught my girls to shoot safely before they could even ride a bike...Na, not really...Reasonable compromise. We have to get more serious about not allowing dumbasses to own firearms. We also have to get more serious about not allowing dumbasses to give other dumbasses and children firearms. There has to be stricter guidelines and punishments for those who give others and especially children, firearms.
Too many dumbasses out there. There has to be a threat of harsh punishment to those who are irresponsible with firearms. You give a firearm to someone or especially a child, you are responsible. And i mean serious prison time.
I give firearms to children all the time...kinda hard to teach them to shoot if all they can do is dry fire with a broomstick.
Then it's all on you. You have to be held accountable. You chose to hand a child a firearm. It is all on you.
Riding a bike as much more dangerous for them at the time...
Is that what you want? Reasonable compromise?Reasonable compromise.
Abortion.
Let's look at the facts
There is a criminal element amongst us
My wife and I are old and weak.
I have a tiny pecker.
We have a right to life and to defend the same
We are going to buy firearms . either from our neighborhood gun store while we can or from a Mexican Drug Cartel.
And there is nothing you low life son of bitch can do about it.
The real retard in the room is the one who failed to read both the PLCAA and the Wikipedia article about it.Then you need only provide title and citation for this"...law that immunizes gun sellers and manufacturers from class action and individual lawsuits."Nonsense. Gun manufacturers and sellers are still liable for their criminal acts. Do some research.
I have. they aren't. YOu pretty much have to catch them openly breaking the law to get any kind of action against them.
I have no fear that you will. It doesn't exist.
Are you like the Norse God of Retards?
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I will not hold my breath while waiting for you to provide title and citation for this"...law that immunizes gun sellers and manufacturers from class action and individual lawsuits."
I have no fear that you will. It doesn't exist.
Easy for you to say.Abortion.
fetuses aren't people.
Abortion.
fetuses aren't people.
Disinformation.Let's look at the facts
There is a criminal element amongst us
My wife and I are old and weak.
I have a tiny pecker.
We have a right to life and to defend the same
We are going to buy firearms . either from our neighborhood gun store while we can or from a Mexican Drug Cartel.
And there is nothing you low life son of bitch can do about it.
except other countries have effectively banned guns. You seem to forget that.
A gun in your home is 43 times more likely to kill a household member than a bad guy.
Not possible.The Gun Industry has lied to you.
Non-sequitur.The real retard in the room is the one who failed to read both the PLCAA and the Wikipedia article about it.Then you need only provide title and citation for this"...law that immunizes gun sellers and manufacturers from class action and individual lawsuits."Nonsense. Gun manufacturers and sellers are still liable for their criminal acts. Do some research.
I have. they aren't. YOu pretty much have to catch them openly breaking the law to get any kind of action against them.
I have no fear that you will. It doesn't exist.
Are you like the Norse God of Retards?
Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I will not hold my breath while waiting for you to provide title and citation for this"...law that immunizes gun sellers and manufacturers from class action and individual lawsuits."
I have no fear that you will. It doesn't exist.
So you can't read plain and simple English, then?
Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.
I own you.
You barely own the stains in your underwear.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.
If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,
quote:
Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
end quote
Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous
But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.
Why the departure?
Same response as southern Democrats gave when asked about the slaves they kept: Black people aren't people, they are property. So that makes it OK.Abortion.
fetuses aren't people.
Indeed.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
"Nothing" -- and yet there's that inconvenient conditional phrase, batting leadoff ....
It is neither inconvenient nor conditional, it merely states a reason why a the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...to ensure the basis of a well-regulated (trained, disciplined, equipped) militia, which is essential to the security of a free state (unlike other states of the time where standing armies were the norm).
It's not rocket surgery, and these lame attempts to play word games with such a simple phrase doesn't make you look smart...it makes you look silly and not well educated.
The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".
Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.
Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.
You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.
You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.
I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.
We'll see when Hillary starts appointing judges. The mood of the court seems to wish to make the nation a better place nowadays. The monthly bloodbaths are not good for the nation so I expect them to do something to either remedy the problem or provide some relief to those affected by the existence of the 2nd Amendment--i.e. people getting killed needlessly. It's much easier to remedy the problem than mitigate the outcome.
When's that gonna be, Chuckles? The week after she wins the Miss America pageant?
Total cop out. Totally expected.
Again, you answered why Militia is there exactly the way a gun nut would. Again totally expected.
But you become totally emasculated when you have to also have to account for the words "well regulated" and come up with the predicted Mumbo Jumbo about clauses and grammar. John Roberts would be proud.
I own you.
You barely own the stains in your underwear.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms..."
Not the right of the militia...
Not the right of the people in the militia...
The right of the people.
Nothing in the constitution supports your position.
Nothing.
If that were the intent, it could have been articulated as,
quote:
Amendment II:
The right of the People to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.
end quote
Had it been writ as such, it would follow exactly the same format as the other 26. It would have been direct, clear, concise and unambiguous
But it wasn't, and it doesn't and it isn't.
Why the departure?
"Nothing" -- and yet there's that inconvenient conditional phrase, batting leadoff ....
It is neither inconvenient nor conditional, it merely states a reason why a the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed...to ensure the basis of a well-regulated (trained, disciplined, equipped) militia, which is essential to the security of a free state (unlike other states of the time where standing armies were the norm).
It's not rocket surgery, and these lame attempts to play word games with such a simple phrase doesn't make you look smart...it makes you look silly and not well educated.
The phrase has no function. It sits there as if it's an intended conditional phrase, implying, yet stopping short of actually saying, that said rights shall apply specifically to citizens in a "well regulated militia".
Its presence there can mean only one of two things. Either:
(1) it IS intended as a conditional phrase, limiting the articulated right to a "well regulated militia" -- in which case it fails to directly state that;
OR
(2) It is NOT intended as a conditional phrase, and therefore has no function, in which case it's fatally ambiguous.
Again, a Constitution is not a court decision. It has no need for explanations, bases of reasoning, or any other incarnation of "why we're doing this". That's not what a Constitution does and not the place for it.
You really want to suggest that, completely out of left field this little phrase suddenly departs from the format of the entire Constitution, injects a thought no one can explain, and then we go back to direct language again? That's what I call word games.
You can like the Second Amendment, you can dislike it, you can feel indifferent --- but you can't sit here and deny how the fuck English works. It's fatally flawed as written. I don't know what it was intended to mean. No one does.
I don't have to suggest anything, you can simply refer to Heller where the Court held in part:
(1) The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part[emphasis added], the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
Again, your silly arguments have no basis in simple English, logic, reason, or law.
We'll see when Hillary starts appointing judges. The mood of the court seems to wish to make the nation a better place nowadays. The monthly bloodbaths are not good for the nation so I expect them to do something to either remedy the problem or provide some relief to those affected by the existence of the 2nd Amendment--i.e. people getting killed needlessly. It's much easier to remedy the problem than mitigate the outcome.
When Hillary starts appointing judges.
