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.
Another Gun Control freak. Damn Nazi.Yeah, domestic abusers have no right to own a firearm. They are more like animals than people. No impulse control.
Use a comma to separate the elements in a series (three or more things), including the last two. "He hit the ball, dropped the bat, and ran to first base."
Use a comma to separate the elements in a series (three or more things), including the last two. "He hit the ball, dropped the bat, and ran to first base."
Save your breath. Learning and education is like kryptonite to the conservative base on this site.
france ...not for a very long time they haven'tBecause the liberals who come up with this horseshit need to be refuted. Which I have done.
BTW, I "like" guns for the same reason I "like" the hammer, saw, and screwdrivers in my tool box. They enable me to do things that need doing. Even though most of the time I leave them in the box and don't think about them for days or weeks on end. Until another situation comes up where I need to use them. And then I'm glad I have them.
Then just say I like my gun and it limits my freedom to take it away. I've done nothing wrong with it and preventative law is no law at all. The argument that we should all be able to hold the government to account with our firearms is a laughable anachranism.
What is that babble supposed to mean?
Guns in private hands are indeed a very effective constraint on government. You don't ever see people lined up for mass slaughter in countries where gun ownership is allowed. You don't see oppressive tyrannies.
I have no idea what that means. Name one country where guns are legally own where the government has engaged in mass slaughter or imprisonment.
your point?that's pauses .btw the 2nd amendment is one sentence .
With several separate clauses.
no where does it state that individuals have the right to bear personal arms , then again it does not prohibit them either and there's the rub.
I'm afraid so. It says "the right of the people." In all other amendments in the Bill of Rights, that means every individual.
not relevant .....chicken shit dodge.france ...not for a very long time they haven'tThen just say I like my gun and it limits my freedom to take it away. I've done nothing wrong with it and preventative law is no law at all. The argument that we should all be able to hold the government to account with our firearms is a laughable anachranism.
What is that babble supposed to mean?
Guns in private hands are indeed a very effective constraint on government. You don't ever see people lined up for mass slaughter in countries where gun ownership is allowed. You don't see oppressive tyrannies.
I have no idea what that means. Name one country where guns are legally own where the government has engaged in mass slaughter or imprisonment.
Guns were legally owned during the French revolution?
yes, the military's job is to maintain order period .The soldiers that control those weapons of that military happen to be second amendment backers in the majority of them at least. You think our men and women of the military back a fucked up federal government when they threaten the Second Amendment.You do know an "amendment" can be changed don't you? By sorta dictionary definition it already has been. And since the government already has nukes, drones and more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world's countries three times over then your 9mm in your locked box in the shed aint really the deterant to government that it used to be when soldiers and civilians both had muskets.
Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit. I don't want to take it off you and I don't want the federal government to do so either but at least admit to yourself that you want it because you like it and not some higher calling of holding government to account.
false comparison. that sentence has no ambiguity in itUse a comma to separate the elements in a series (three or more things), including the last two. "He hit the ball, dropped the bat, and ran to first base."
Here's a better example:
Gasoline being necessary for the operation of motor cars, you shall not steal gas.
The dependent clause does not modify the meaning of the independent clause in any sense.
All our rights have some limit .
Otherwise people could just buy guns out of vending machines .
Order and the federal government are two opposing thingsyes, the military's job is to maintain order period .The soldiers that control those weapons of that military happen to be second amendment backers in the majority of them at least. You think our men and women of the military back a fucked up federal government when they threaten the Second Amendment.You do know an "amendment" can be changed don't you? By sorta dictionary definition it already has been. And since the government already has nukes, drones and more aircraft carriers than the rest of the world's countries three times over then your 9mm in your locked box in the shed aint really the deterant to government that it used to be when soldiers and civilians both had muskets.
Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit. I don't want to take it off you and I don't want the federal government to do so either but at least admit to yourself that you want it because you like it and not some higher calling of holding government to account.
So, you believe in Gun Control. Got it.Another Gun Control freak. Damn Nazi.Yeah, domestic abusers have no right to own a firearm. They are more like animals than people. No impulse control.
I don't have any problem with law-abiding citizens owning guns. Domestic abusers are not law abiding. They are more of a threat to other members of their household, than criminals outside their home are. Those are the facts of the matter.
Criminal control is a better solutionSo, you believe in Gun Control. Got it.Another Gun Control freak. Damn Nazi.Yeah, domestic abusers have no right to own a firearm. They are more like animals than people. No impulse control.
I don't have any problem with law-abiding citizens owning guns. Domestic abusers are not law abiding. They are more of a threat to other members of their household, than criminals outside their home are. Those are the facts of the matter.
Fuckin' Nazi...
That's not Criminal Control. He's walking the streets, he's just not allowed to legally own a gun. That, Sweetcheeks, is Gun Control.Criminal control is a better solutionSo, you believe in Gun Control. Got it.Another Gun Control freak. Damn Nazi.Yeah, domestic abusers have no right to own a firearm. They are more like animals than people. No impulse control.
I don't have any problem with law-abiding citizens owning guns. Domestic abusers are not law abiding. They are more of a threat to other members of their household, than criminals outside their home are. Those are the facts of the matter.
Fuckin' Nazi...
All our rights have some limit .
Otherwise people could just buy guns out of vending machines .
yes you have ...read any thing you've posted there are several in this thread.that's ironic you do it all the time ,Words have meaning. You don't get to change them just because it's convenient for your argument.
Really? Provide an example.
I haven't changed the meaning of any words.
So, you believe in Gun Control. Got it.Another Gun Control freak. Damn Nazi.Yeah, domestic abusers have no right to own a firearm. They are more like animals than people. No impulse control.
I don't have any problem with law-abiding citizens owning guns. Domestic abusers are not law abiding. They are more of a threat to other members of their household, than criminals outside their home are. Those are the facts of the matter.
Fuckin' Nazi...
In your professional consultants view, how are you going to diss-arm millions of Americans of 300-400 million firearms??That's not Criminal Control. He's walking the streets, he's just not allowed to legally own a gun. That, Sweetcheeks, is Gun Control.Criminal control is a better solutionSo, you believe in Gun Control. Got it.Another Gun Control freak. Damn Nazi.Yeah, domestic abusers have no right to own a firearm. They are more like animals than people. No impulse control.
I don't have any problem with law-abiding citizens owning guns. Domestic abusers are not law abiding. They are more of a threat to other members of their household, than criminals outside their home are. Those are the facts of the matter.
Fuckin' Nazi...
in France where just under a quarter of all households have guns, often between three and four per house, with around 20 million registered firearms in circulation – that’s with a population of 66 million.
In this case I'm defending the rights of people to own guns. Did he shoot anyone, yet? No.So, you believe in Gun Control. Got it.Another Gun Control freak. Damn Nazi.Yeah, domestic abusers have no right to own a firearm. They are more like animals than people. No impulse control.
I don't have any problem with law-abiding citizens owning guns. Domestic abusers are not law abiding. They are more of a threat to other members of their household, than criminals outside their home are. Those are the facts of the matter.
Fuckin' Nazi...
Only a wife beater would defend domestic violence. Duly noted.
your point?that's pauses .btw the 2nd amendment is one sentence .
With several separate clauses.
no where does it state that individuals have the right to bear personal arms , then again it does not prohibit them either and there's the rub.
I'm afraid so. It says "the right of the people." In all other amendments in the Bill of Rights, that means every individual.
I just said in that post the 2nd amendment never explicitly mentions that individuals have the right bear (own) personal arms but neither does it explicitly state they cannot .....do you understand what the word ambiguous means ?
