Sorry Hillary but Hellar was not about toddlers

[longknife]

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

Just one more of her many lies.

 

[tyroneweaver]

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?

Hillary lied. Deal with it.

 

[JoeMoma]

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.

It's common sense that an unassembled gun can not be immediately used for self defense, thus it's an infringement on the right to bear arms to require storage as such.

 

[OKTexas]

No asswipe....she is going to appoint Supreme Court justices and appellate level judges who will gut the 2nd Amendment.

No, asswipe, she isn't. You said the same fucking thing about Obama.

Are you the owner of a gun shop, or are you just one of their stupid stooges?

In 132 pages toddlers is not mentioned once. I can see why you're trying so hard to hijack the thread.

It was about keeping weapons secured. So the word “toddler” being in the decision is irrelevant.

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.

What the hell would you know on the subject?

 

[OKTexas]

Hillary is a liar...

Hillary: I am not for open borders

Moderator: Here's a speech where you clearly state you are for open borders, quote "I'm for open borders"

Hillary: I wasn't talking about open borders when I said that, I was talking about energy.

Moderator: What??

That one was a whopper!

No, actually it wasn't a "whopper"...

Here is what she said, per WikiLeaks: “My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, sometime in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere.” Fact-checks have debated what exactly this means. While Clinton’s campaign says it’s about energy, reasonable people have disagreed. PolitiFact cited people who said they believed it referred to both trade and immigration. FactCheck.org, meanwhile, believed it “was related to trade, not immigration.” However one interprets this, it is also true that Clinton has not called for “open borders” as a policy during this campaign.

Danielle KurtzlebenNPR Politics Reporter

Left wing supposed fact checkers trying to favorably spin what she clearly said, color me freaking shocked. She lied her ass off as usual.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

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

No, Hillary is the best thing that can happen to the NRA, just as Obama was. Gun and ammo sales will go,through the roof, based on the insane beliefs of conservative morons.

OK slick.

What are the insane beliefs of one who is not Republican nor conservative, but owns firearms and stands behind the second ammendment?

 

[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.

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?

Examples?

 

[HnL]

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]

Hmmm.
Got any other sources that say something differently?

 

[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.

It's common sense that an unassembled gun can not be immediately used for self defense, thus it's an infringement on the right to bear arms to require storage as such.

The second amendment isn't a self defense amendment.

 

[HnL]

No, asswipe, she isn't. You said the same fucking thing about Obama.

Are you the owner of a gun shop, or are you just one of their stupid stooges?

In 132 pages toddlers is not mentioned once. I can see why you're trying so hard to hijack the thread.

It was about keeping weapons secured. So the word “toddler” being in the decision is irrelevant.

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.

What the hell would you know on the subject?

My father was career military and I was in the US Army. I pretty much grew up on base.

 

[HnL]

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

No, Hillary is the best thing that can happen to the NRA, just as Obama was. Gun and ammo sales will go,through the roof, based on the insane beliefs of conservative morons.

OK slick.

What are the insane beliefs of one who is not Republican nor conservative, but owns firearms and stands behind the second ammendment?

That Hillary or Obama want to take your guns and get rid of the second amendment. That is insane.

 

[Lakhota]

Sorry Hillary but Hellar was not about toddlers

Yes, it was. Just substitute "trigger locks" for "toddlers" - which was exactly the point Hillary was making.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

Dismantling a firearm while storing it is sensible to you? That renders it useless in an emergency. Thinking isn't your strong point.

 

[Iceweasel]

Sorry Hillary but Hellar was not about toddlers

Yes, it was. Just substitute "trigger locks" for "toddlers" - which was exactly the point Hillary was making.

District of Columbia v. Heller - Wikipedia

wikipedia? LOL

 

[OKTexas]

In 132 pages toddlers is not mentioned once. I can see why you're trying so hard to hijack the thread.

It was about keeping weapons secured. So the word “toddler” being in the decision is irrelevant.

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.

What the hell would you know on the subject?

My father was career military and I was in the US Army. I pretty much grew up on base.

For what 3 minutes? I was career military and for the vast majority of it, I had firearms in my home.

 

[Iceweasel]

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.

It's common sense that an unassembled gun can not be immediately used for self defense, thus it's an infringement on the right to bear arms to require storage as such.

The second amendment isn't a self defense amendment.

Huh? What a dumb statement.

 

[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?

Examples?

I asked you a simple question. Why is it acceptable to say a person has to keep a firearm in a disabled state in his house, when you can't guarantee a burglar is following the same rules?

 

[martybegan]

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]

Hmmm.
Got any other sources that say something differently?

Your source was debunked a decade ago by people who desperately wanted to agree with the findings, but actually still had some academic integrity.

Hmmm, crappy source quoting, methinks you are a JoeBlow sock.

 

[HnL]

It was about keeping weapons secured. So the word “toddler” being in the decision is irrelevant.

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.

What the hell would you know on the subject?

My father was career military and I was in the US Army. I pretty much grew up on base.

For what 3 minutes? I was career military and for the vast majority of it, I had firearms in my home.

And you couldn't carry them on base.

 

[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.

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?

Examples?

I asked you a simple question. Why is it acceptable to say a person has to keep a firearm in a disabled state in his house, when you can't guarantee a burglar is following the same rules?

A loaded firearm is a terrible way to confront a burglar. And you can get your weapon out of a safe rather quickly and load it.