Sorry Hillary but Hellar was not about toddlers

[ThunderKiss1965]

No it was about keeping weapons unaccessible for self defense, that's an unlawful infringement on the 2nd.

Tell that to the service men and women who go about their days on base or post, with all their weapons locked up.

You mean the ones the muslim terrorist at Fort Hood murdered...you mean them? Because they are not allowed to carry pistols because we only trust them to carry guns when they are over seas?

Yes, I mean the services men and women on posts, bases, and ports throughout the country.

Yes.....the men and women who carry weapons all over the world and manage not to shoot each other or innocent people...yet when they come home...where they are just as much a target for terrorists as anyone else...you don't want them to carry a gun...that is your position..right?

That is the United States military position. And it is now, and has always been, constitutional.

That's not the military's decision that's a DOD one i.e the Government.

 

[martybegan]

Yes.....the men and women who carry weapons all over the world and manage not to shoot each other or innocent people...yet when they come home...where they are just as much a target for terrorists as anyone else...you don't want them to carry a gun...that is your position..right?

That is the United States military position. And it is now, and has always been, constitutional.

No one said it wasn't Constitutional....it is just a fucking stupid policy by the military....and it cost lives in Fort Hood......when the muslim terrorists shot all those unarmed soldiers....

You don't know if it cost lives in that instance. And you have no clue how many lives it might have saved over the years.

It cost lives moron......3 men, trained soldiers, had to rush him empty handed to try to stop him because of that stupid policy.....

I understand that you disagree. My point is that Heller is garbage. It is a ruling to appease idiots like yourself who think guns are good everywhere, and think the second amendment should be regarded as supporting guns being your right to carry wherever and whenever you want. But it was clearly not intended to be interpreted that way.

So what you are saying is DC had the right to completely ban handgun ownership by citizens, and to require any gun stored in a home to be unloaded, disassembled, or locked up.

Is that what you are saying? because what Heller says is that DC can't do that.

 

[HnL]

That is the United States military position. And it is now, and has always been, constitutional.

No one said it wasn't Constitutional....it is just a fucking stupid policy by the military....and it cost lives in Fort Hood......when the muslim terrorists shot all those unarmed soldiers....

You don't know if it cost lives in that instance. And you have no clue how many lives it might have saved over the years.

It cost lives moron......3 men, trained soldiers, had to rush him empty handed to try to stop him because of that stupid policy.....

I understand that you disagree. My point is that Heller is garbage. It is a ruling to appease idiots like yourself who think guns are good everywhere, and think the second amendment should be regarded as supporting guns being your right to carry wherever and whenever you want. But it was clearly not intended to be interpreted that way.

And you are wrong...completely wrong.....the Right to carry a weapon for self defense goes back to the founding of the colonies and this country......guns allow people to be safe from violent attack....what you don't get about that is just amazing...

That is simply false. When the amendment was written, less than one in six men had a gun, and of those, half were unusable.

But you wouldn't know this based on the fairy tales gun worshippers tell each other.

 

[2aguy]

No one said it wasn't Constitutional....it is just a fucking stupid policy by the military....and it cost lives in Fort Hood......when the muslim terrorists shot all those unarmed soldiers....

You don't know if it cost lives in that instance. And you have no clue how many lives it might have saved over the years.

It cost lives moron......3 men, trained soldiers, had to rush him empty handed to try to stop him because of that stupid policy.....

I understand that you disagree. My point is that Heller is garbage. It is a ruling to appease idiots like yourself who think guns are good everywhere, and think the second amendment should be regarded as supporting guns being your right to carry wherever and whenever you want. But it was clearly not intended to be interpreted that way.

And you are wrong...completely wrong.....the Right to carry a weapon for self defense goes back to the founding of the colonies and this country......guns allow people to be safe from violent attack....what you don't get about that is just amazing...

That is simply false. When the amendment was written, less than one in six men had a gun, and of those, half were unusable.

But you wouldn't know this based on the fairy tales gun worshippers tell each other.

You are brain dead.........guns were common tools as the colonies were dangerous places....you guys will make up fantasies to cover any lie you create....

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

No, idiot, she doesn't want to get rid of the second amendment.

The Democratic Party would love nothing more than to get rid of the Second Amendment and anyone who says otherwise is a bald faced liar.

 

[martybegan]

No one said it wasn't Constitutional....it is just a fucking stupid policy by the military....and it cost lives in Fort Hood......when the muslim terrorists shot all those unarmed soldiers....

You don't know if it cost lives in that instance. And you have no clue how many lives it might have saved over the years.

It cost lives moron......3 men, trained soldiers, had to rush him empty handed to try to stop him because of that stupid policy.....

I understand that you disagree. My point is that Heller is garbage. It is a ruling to appease idiots like yourself who think guns are good everywhere, and think the second amendment should be regarded as supporting guns being your right to carry wherever and whenever you want. But it was clearly not intended to be interpreted that way.

And you are wrong...completely wrong.....the Right to carry a weapon for self defense goes back to the founding of the colonies and this country......guns allow people to be safe from violent attack....what you don't get about that is just amazing...

That is simply false. When the amendment was written, less than one in six men had a gun, and of those, half were unusable.

But you wouldn't know this based on the fairy tales gun worshippers tell each other.

Links?

 

[HnL]

That is the United States military position. And it is now, and has always been, constitutional.

No one said it wasn't Constitutional....it is just a fucking stupid policy by the military....and it cost lives in Fort Hood......when the muslim terrorists shot all those unarmed soldiers....

You don't know if it cost lives in that instance. And you have no clue how many lives it might have saved over the years.

It cost lives moron......3 men, trained soldiers, had to rush him empty handed to try to stop him because of that stupid policy.....

I understand that you disagree. My point is that Heller is garbage. It is a ruling to appease idiots like yourself who think guns are good everywhere, and think the second amendment should be regarded as supporting guns being your right to carry wherever and whenever you want. But it was clearly not intended to be interpreted that way.

So what you are saying is DC had the right to completely ban handgun ownership by citizens, and to require any gun stored in a home to be unloaded, disassembled, or locked up.

Is that what you are saying? because what Heller says is that DC can't do that.

Right. Heller is garbage.

 

[JoeMoma]

No one said it wasn't Constitutional....it is just a fucking stupid policy by the military....and it cost lives in Fort Hood......when the muslim terrorists shot all those unarmed soldiers....

You don't know if it cost lives in that instance. And you have no clue how many lives it might have saved over the years.

It cost lives moron......3 men, trained soldiers, had to rush him empty handed to try to stop him because of that stupid policy.....

I understand that you disagree. My point is that Heller is garbage. It is a ruling to appease idiots like yourself who think guns are good everywhere, and think the second amendment should be regarded as supporting guns being your right to carry wherever and whenever you want. But it was clearly not intended to be interpreted that way.

And you are wrong...completely wrong.....the Right to carry a weapon for self defense goes back to the founding of the colonies and this country......guns allow people to be safe from violent attack....what you don't get about that is just amazing...

That is simply false. When the amendment was written, less than one in six men had a gun, and of those, half were unusable.

But you wouldn't know this based on the fairy tales gun worshippers tell each other.

So? People choosing not to have guns does not negate other people's right to bear arms (guns).

 

[Bruce_T_Laney]

Of course hillary won't take your guns. She'll appoint people who will take your guns
Doesn't matter what your feelings about guns are.
Hillary gave a BS answer.

No, Hillary, The Supreme Court's Heller Decision Wasn't About Toddlers

On this issue Hillary was full of shit!

 

[martybegan]

No one said it wasn't Constitutional....it is just a fucking stupid policy by the military....and it cost lives in Fort Hood......when the muslim terrorists shot all those unarmed soldiers....

You don't know if it cost lives in that instance. And you have no clue how many lives it might have saved over the years.

It cost lives moron......3 men, trained soldiers, had to rush him empty handed to try to stop him because of that stupid policy.....

I understand that you disagree. My point is that Heller is garbage. It is a ruling to appease idiots like yourself who think guns are good everywhere, and think the second amendment should be regarded as supporting guns being your right to carry wherever and whenever you want. But it was clearly not intended to be interpreted that way.

So what you are saying is DC had the right to completely ban handgun ownership by citizens, and to require any gun stored in a home to be unloaded, disassembled, or locked up.

Is that what you are saying? because what Heller says is that DC can't do that.

Right. Heller is garbage.

Answer the fucking question, hack.

 

[HnL]

You don't know if it cost lives in that instance. And you have no clue how many lives it might have saved over the years.

It cost lives moron......3 men, trained soldiers, had to rush him empty handed to try to stop him because of that stupid policy.....

I understand that you disagree. My point is that Heller is garbage. It is a ruling to appease idiots like yourself who think guns are good everywhere, and think the second amendment should be regarded as supporting guns being your right to carry wherever and whenever you want. But it was clearly not intended to be interpreted that way.

And you are wrong...completely wrong.....the Right to carry a weapon for self defense goes back to the founding of the colonies and this country......guns allow people to be safe from violent attack....what you don't get about that is just amazing...

That is simply false. When the amendment was written, less than one in six men had a gun, and of those, half were unusable.

But you wouldn't know this based on the fairy tales gun worshippers tell each other.

You are brain dead.........guns were common tools as the colonies were dangerous places....you guys will make up fantasies to cover any lie you create....

Guns were a very uncommon tool. Guess again.

 

[2aguy]

It cost lives moron......3 men, trained soldiers, had to rush him empty handed to try to stop him because of that stupid policy.....

I understand that you disagree. My point is that Heller is garbage. It is a ruling to appease idiots like yourself who think guns are good everywhere, and think the second amendment should be regarded as supporting guns being your right to carry wherever and whenever you want. But it was clearly not intended to be interpreted that way.

And you are wrong...completely wrong.....the Right to carry a weapon for self defense goes back to the founding of the colonies and this country......guns allow people to be safe from violent attack....what you don't get about that is just amazing...

That is simply false. When the amendment was written, less than one in six men had a gun, and of those, half were unusable.

But you wouldn't know this based on the fairy tales gun worshippers tell each other.

You are brain dead.........guns were common tools as the colonies were dangerous places....you guys will make up fantasies to cover any lie you create....

Guns were a very uncommon tool. Guess again.

You aren't very bright are you........? Did your parents drop you on your head a lot....?

 

[HnL]

The Democratic Party would love nothing more than to get rid of the Second Amendment and anyone who says otherwise is a bald faced liar.

Show me where the Democratic Party platform has ever said getting rid of second amendment was on the agenda.

 

[HnL]

So? People choosing not to have guns does not negate other people's right to bear arms (guns).

Your right was never unrestricted. D.C. didn't restrict gun ownership. They just had common sense regulations.

 

[HnL]

Answer the fucking question, hack.

Parts of the D.C. law, which stood for over 30 years was clearly constitutional, as far as I'm concerned. The specific restrictions on handguns seemed a little hard to defend.

 

[HnL]

You don't know if it cost lives in that instance. And you have no clue how many lives it might have saved over the years.

It cost lives moron......3 men, trained soldiers, had to rush him empty handed to try to stop him because of that stupid policy.....

I understand that you disagree. My point is that Heller is garbage. It is a ruling to appease idiots like yourself who think guns are good everywhere, and think the second amendment should be regarded as supporting guns being your right to carry wherever and whenever you want. But it was clearly not intended to be interpreted that way.

And you are wrong...completely wrong.....the Right to carry a weapon for self defense goes back to the founding of the colonies and this country......guns allow people to be safe from violent attack....what you don't get about that is just amazing...

That is simply false. When the amendment was written, less than one in six men had a gun, and of those, half were unusable.

But you wouldn't know this based on the fairy tales gun worshippers tell each other.

Links?

Spiking the Gun Myth

 

[martybegan]

Answer the fucking question, hack.

Parts of the D.C. law, which stood for over 30 years was clearly constitutional, as far as I'm concerned. The specific restrictions on handguns seemed a little hard to defend.

Why should a person be required to keep the weapon unusable when you can't apply the same rule to the asshole breaking into your house?

 

[martybegan]

It cost lives moron......3 men, trained soldiers, had to rush him empty handed to try to stop him because of that stupid policy.....

I understand that you disagree. My point is that Heller is garbage. It is a ruling to appease idiots like yourself who think guns are good everywhere, and think the second amendment should be regarded as supporting guns being your right to carry wherever and whenever you want. But it was clearly not intended to be interpreted that way.

And you are wrong...completely wrong.....the Right to carry a weapon for self defense goes back to the founding of the colonies and this country......guns allow people to be safe from violent attack....what you don't get about that is just amazing...

That is simply false. When the amendment was written, less than one in six men had a gun, and of those, half were unusable.

But you wouldn't know this based on the fairy tales gun worshippers tell each other.

Links?

Spiking the Gun Myth

You mean this book?

Arming America - Wikipedia

This says it all:

[Although the book was initially awarded the prestigious Bancroft Prize, it later became the first work for which the prize was rescinded following a decision of Columbia University's Board of Trustees that Bellesiles had "violated basic norms of scholarship and the high standards expected of Bancroft Prize winners."[1]/QUOTE]

 

[NYcarbineer]

Of course hillary won't take your guns. She'll appoint people who will take your guns
Doesn't matter what your feelings about guns are.
Hillary gave a BS answer.

No, Hillary, The Supreme Court's Heller Decision Wasn't About Toddlers

Hellar? Hello?

 

[tyroneweaver]

I understand that you disagree. My point is that Heller is garbage. It is a ruling to appease idiots like yourself who think guns are good everywhere, and think the second amendment should be regarded as supporting guns being your right to carry wherever and whenever you want. But it was clearly not intended to be interpreted that way.

And you are wrong...completely wrong.....the Right to carry a weapon for self defense goes back to the founding of the colonies and this country......guns allow people to be safe from violent attack....what you don't get about that is just amazing...

That is simply false. When the amendment was written, less than one in six men had a gun, and of those, half were unusable.

But you wouldn't know this based on the fairy tales gun worshippers tell each other.

You are brain dead.........guns were common tools as the colonies were dangerous places....you guys will make up fantasies to cover any lie you create....

Guns were a very uncommon tool. Guess again.

You aren't very bright are you........? Did your parents drop you on your head a lot....?

his parents kept him in a corner and fed him with a sling shot