Some liberals STILL think govt can have some say in who can own a gun

[Manchester]

Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit.

Because 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.

You don't get school shootings in the UK and Australia now that guns have been banned in those countries. They aren't tyrannies. It may be effective but at what cost? How many dead children is it worth for the outside chance of a tyranny being averted?

 

[daws101]

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.

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.

yes, the military's job is to maintain order period .

Order and the federal government or two opposing things

false.

 

[bripat9643]

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.

not for a very long time they haven't

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.

france ...

Guns were legally owned during the French revolution?

not relevant .....chicken shit dodge.

I thought we were talking about countries where the government engaged in mass slaughter or imprisonment and it was legal for people to own guns. France isn't an example of that.

 

[bripat9643]

Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit.

Because 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.

You don't get school shootings in the UK and Australia now that guns have been banned in those countries. They aren't tyrannies. It may be effective but at what cost? How many dead children is it worth for the outside chance of a tyranny being averted?

That isn't the question under discussion.

 

[Rustic]

Yeah, domestic abusers have no right to own a firearm. They are more like animals than people. No impulse control.

Another Gun Control freak. Damn Nazi.

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.

So, you believe in Gun Control. Got it.

Fuckin' Nazi...

Only a wife beater would defend domestic violence. Duly noted.

In this case I'm defending the rights of people to own guns. Did he shoot anyone, yet? No.

If the point is he might shoot someone, that is true of everyone who owns or can manage to get access to a gun, hence the problem...

Sounds kind a like making someone buy insurance because they might need it...
Foolish little mind

 

[daws101]

btw the 2nd amendment is one sentence .

With several separate clauses.

that's pauses .
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.

your point?
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 ?

"The people" means every individual, so you're just plain wrong. It's not the slightest big ambiguous.

Please try to keep up.

the people is only part of the statement and not the message.
keep up? I've lapped you many many times before you could even get started

 

[bripat9643]

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."

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.

false comparison. that sentence has no ambiguity in it
the 2nd amendment does.
thanks for playing.

Where's the "ambiguity" in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed?"

Leftwing douches like you claim "ambiguity" whenever they want to ignore some part of the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

With several separate clauses.

that's pauses .
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.

your point?
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 ?

"The people" means every individual, so you're just plain wrong. It's not the slightest big ambiguous.

Please try to keep up.

the people is only part of the statement and not the message.
keep up? I've lapped you many many times before you could even get started

So where's the "ambiguous" part?

 

[Manchester]

Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit.

Because 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.

You don't get school shootings in the UK and Australia now that guns have been banned in those countries. They aren't tyrannies. It may be effective but at what cost? How many dead children is it worth for the outside chance of a tyranny being averted?

That isn't the question under discussion.

I think when you started throwing insults instead of actual points it became so. You want kids to die because of your stubborn adherance to ancient outdated text. And you call me a douche?

 

[Londoner]

The 2nd Amendment uses the word militia, which, taken strictly from the time period, has nothing to do with individual gun ownership without limits. Originalists like Scalia and Cruz would NEVER allow such a loose interpretation of the Constitution if it was an issue that didn't have personal resonance. This is why they are dangerous people. For them the Constitution is always subservient to their personal politics. They are partisans of the rankest vintage.

Having said that, I could care less who owns a gun. I also don't care if sovereign nations have nukes. I don't live in fear, and I know that the likelihood of dying by gun violence or terrorism is less than the likelihood of dying from a bee sting.

 

[Rustic]

Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit.

Because 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.

You don't get school shootings in the UK and Australia now that guns have been banned in those countries. They aren't tyrannies. It may be effective but at what cost? How many dead children is it worth for the outside chance of a tyranny being averted?

You may want to live life scared, but I'll take my chances with the Second Amendment. Now go hide

 

[Agit8r]

Yeah, domestic abusers have no right to own a firearm. They are more like animals than people. No impulse control.

Another Gun Control freak. Damn Nazi.

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.

So, you believe in Gun Control. Got it.

Fuckin' Nazi...

Only a wife beater would defend domestic violence. Duly noted.

In this case I'm defending the rights of people to own guns. Did he shoot anyone, yet? No.

If the point is he might shoot someone, that is true of everyone who owns or can manage to get access to a gun, hence the problem...

Though statistically domestic abusers do. When they cannot terrorize their household enough with fists to have the desired affect, they turn to guns.

 

[daws101]

Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit.

Because 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.

You don't get school shootings in the UK and Australia now that guns have been banned in those countries. They aren't tyrannies. It may be effective but at what cost? How many dead children is it worth for the outside chance of a tyranny being averted?

That isn't the question under discussion.

yes it is . the whole theme of this thread is gun control , you're just to chicken shit or ignorant to admit it.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Sounds kind a like making someone buy insurance because they might need it...
Foolish little mind

Common sense. We make people do that.

 

[Auld Phart]

With several separate clauses.

that's pauses .
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.

your point?
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 ?

"The people" means every individual, so you're just plain wrong. It's not the slightest big ambiguous.

Please try to keep up.

the people is only part of the statement and not the message.
keep up? I've lapped you many many times before you could even get started

the people is only part of the statement and not the message.
keep up?

You've got it backwards.

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms IS the statement.

Because not ALL people qualified to join the militia.

 

[bripat9643]

Because 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.

You don't get school shootings in the UK and Australia now that guns have been banned in those countries. They aren't tyrannies. It may be effective but at what cost? How many dead children is it worth for the outside chance of a tyranny being averted?

That isn't the question under discussion.

I think when you started throwing insults instead of actual points it became so. You want kids to die because of your stubborn adherance to ancient outdated text. And you call me a douche?

There's nothing "outdated" about it. It's the law.

Thanks for admitting you want to wipe your ass on the Constitution. That makes you a douche.

Accusing people of wanting kids to die also makes you a douche.

 

[Rustic]

The 2nd Amendment uses the word militia, which, taken strictly from the time period, has nothing to do with individual gun ownership without limits. Originalists like Scalia and Cruz would NEVER allow such a loose interpretation of the Constitution if it was an issue that didn't have personal resonance. This is why they are dangerous people. For them the Constitution is always subservient to their personal politics. They are partisans of the rankest vintage.

Having said that, I could care less who owns a gun. I also don't care if sovereign nations have nukes. I don't live in fear, and I know that the likelihood of dying by gun violence or terrorism is less than the likelihood of dying from a bee sting.

You're going to paint my house a cardiac

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Another Gun Control freak. Damn Nazi.

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.

So, you believe in Gun Control. Got it.

Fuckin' Nazi...

Only a wife beater would defend domestic violence. Duly noted.

In this case I'm defending the rights of people to own guns. Did he shoot anyone, yet? No.

If the point is he might shoot someone, that is true of everyone who owns or can manage to get access to a gun, hence the problem...

Though statistically domestic abusers do. When they cannot terrorize their household enough with fists to have the desired affect, they turn to guns.

Sounds like a "thought crime" to me eh? No proof at all that they would shoot somebody? Nice normal people shoot other people all day long here, which is why I want the guns, all of them eventually.

 

[Manchester]

Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit.

Because 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.

You don't get school shootings in the UK and Australia now that guns have been banned in those countries. They aren't tyrannies. It may be effective but at what cost? How many dead children is it worth for the outside chance of a tyranny being averted?

You may want to live life scared, but I'll take my chances with the Second Amendment. Now go hide

What a startling confession that you find other people so scary that you feel the need to own a firearm. I'm not scared, never have been, just the way I am I guess.

 

[daws101]

Why not just say I want my gun because I like it rather than come out with this horseshit.

Because 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.

You don't get school shootings in the UK and Australia now that guns have been banned in those countries. They aren't tyrannies. It may be effective but at what cost? How many dead children is it worth for the outside chance of a tyranny being averted?

You may want to live life scared, but I'll take my chances with the Second Amendment. Now go hide

seems to me your dependence on the second amendment is smoking gun proof ( pun intended ) that you're scared shitless.