Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[ChrisL]

If you need a pipe bomb, you can't legally own one. You failed, again.

What are you taking about?!? Could you be any dumber?!? I can absolutely build anything I want on my private property - including a "pipe bomb" or any other bomb.

“It is shocking to learn that it is not illegal for an individual to build an explosive device at home,” Schumer said.

Schumer pushes to close loophole allowing homemade bombs

Build a nuke or a biological weapon? We have a nice cell for you to spend the rest of your life in.

Who is "we?"

 

[P@triot]

If you need a pipe bomb, you can't legally own one. You failed, again.

What are you taking about?!? Could you be any dumber?!? I can absolutely build anything I want on my private property - including a "pipe bomb" or any other bomb.

“It is shocking to learn that it is not illegal for an individual to build an explosive device at home,” Schumer said.

Schumer pushes to close loophole allowing homemade bombs

Build a nuke or a biological weapon? We have a nice cell for you to spend the rest of your life in.

Move the goalposts much???? Don't move the goalposts after the facts prove you make stuff up. Be a man for once in your life and admit that you have no clue what you're talking about.

 

[ChrisL]

Bombs are not arms, and nobody needs a bomb for self-defense.

---
Apparently, English is not your strong point.
ARMS:
"weapons and ammunition; armaments."
.

We already have laws in place regarding those types of "arms." Thanks. Lol.

 

[Jack4jill]

If you need a pipe bomb, you can't legally own one. You failed, again.

What are you taking about?!? Could you be any dumber?!? I can absolutely build anything I want on my private property - including a "pipe bomb" or any other bomb.

“It is shocking to learn that it is not illegal for an individual to build an explosive device at home,” Schumer said.

Schumer pushes to close loophole allowing homemade bombs

Build a nuke or a biological weapon? We have a nice cell for you to spend the rest of your life in.

Tell us again how I can't "legally own a pipe bomb". Come on chief....keep showing everyone how you make stuff up.

By the way - it's 100% legal to build a nuclear weapon as well you tool. The problem is that some of the materials needed to build one are restricted and not available to average citizens.

Sorry, Puddles, you are too insane to bother with if you believe that but it's nice to know you won't mind Muslim terrorists building nukes at home here.

 

[ChrisL]

With the exception of a few loons, most of the anti-rights crowd are from other countries, they are not American citizens, and they don't understand the importance of our rights.

 

[ChrisL]

If you need a pipe bomb, you can't legally own one. You failed, again.

What are you taking about?!? Could you be any dumber?!? I can absolutely build anything I want on my private property - including a "pipe bomb" or any other bomb.

“It is shocking to learn that it is not illegal for an individual to build an explosive device at home,” Schumer said.

Schumer pushes to close loophole allowing homemade bombs

Build a nuke or a biological weapon? We have a nice cell for you to spend the rest of your life in.

Tell us again how I can't "legally own a pipe bomb". Come on chief....keep showing everyone how you make stuff up.

By the way - it's 100% legal to build a nuclear weapon as well you tool. The problem is that some of the materials needed to build one are restricted and not available to average citizens.

Sorry, Puddles, you are too insane to bother with if you believe that but it's nice to know you won't mind Muslim terrorists building nukes at home here.

Holy smokes. Lol.

 

[P@triot]

Arms control is not crazy, it just makes gun lovers upset.

The fact that you feel any need to exert control over others is the very definition of bat-shit crazy. The people who agree with you are people like Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin. Not the type of people I want to stand next to.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

No, they didn't. The sentence that is the 2nd Amendment begins with the reason why citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. It is plain language. The concept and ruling that the Amendment included the individual rights are recent and a major change from past interpretations. It was narrowly passed by the Robert's court with an opinion written by Justice Scalia.
That decision can be turned any time and will rely on future Justice's agreeing with the Scalia opinion. That is a major reason the replacement of Scalia is being denied.

The fact that you even think that the Supreme Court has the power to decide what the Constitution says and to create or alter law from the bench just shows how much you don't know about the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government.

The fact that you even think that the Supreme Court lacks the authority to determine what the Constitution means shows how much you don't know about the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government.

And the notion that Supreme Court rulings manifest as ‘making laws from the bench’ is consistent with your overall ignorance of the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

 

[ChrisL]

Arms control is not crazy, it just makes gun lovers upset.

The fact that you feel any need to exert control over others is the very definition of bat-shit crazy. The people who agree with you are people like Saddam Hussein, Adolf Hitler, and Joseph Stalin. Not the type of people I want to stand next to.

It's sheer fear and paranoia that motivates these people. And the fact that they don't really have any idea what they are talking about. Ignorance and stupidity basically.

 

[ChrisL]

No, they didn't. The sentence that is the 2nd Amendment begins with the reason why citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. It is plain language. The concept and ruling that the Amendment included the individual rights are recent and a major change from past interpretations. It was narrowly passed by the Robert's court with an opinion written by Justice Scalia.
That decision can be turned any time and will rely on future Justice's agreeing with the Scalia opinion. That is a major reason the replacement of Scalia is being denied.

The fact that you even think that the Supreme Court has the power to decide what the Constitution says and to create or alter law from the bench just shows how much you don't know about the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government.

The fact that you even think that the Supreme Court lacks the authority to determine what the Constitution means shows how much you don't know about the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government.

And the notion that Supreme Court rulings manifest as ‘making laws from the bench’ is consistent with your overall ignorance of the Constitution, its case law, and the rule of law.

And the Supreme court has ruled. People have a constitutional right to use guns as tools of self defense.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Banning most guns, of course.

That is going to move them underground. How'd that work with drugs or alcohol?

Going underground would be just fine. We have lots of prisons.

This doesn't even make sense. For one thing, if you push guns into the illegal market, they would be twice as difficult to trace. There would be no "background checks" or other such measures. Your argument is weak sauce.

Anyone found with a gun and not allowed to would go break rocks for ten years. They'll get the message in no time.

You mean like they do now? You are aware of course that your liberal judges do NOT in fact send criminals to jail for long over firearms possession?

You are aware, of course, that this is a ridiculous lie.

 

[P@triot]

Keep your pipe bombs at home, like your guns.

Keep your opinions at home. The 1st Amendment does not extend to the internet. So shut the f*ck up, turn off your computer, and go do something constructive. You already admitted that your 1st Amendment rights do not extend to the Constitution.

 

[P@triot]

And the Supreme court has ruled. People have a constitutional right to use guns as tools of self defense.

And it wouldn't have mattered if they ruled against the 2nd Amendment anyway, because the U.S. Constitution trumps the Supreme Court. In fact, the Supreme Court only exists and derives its power from the U.S. Constitution (therefore, they cannot supersede it). Something so basic and simple, only a liberal would be baffled by it.

 

[ChrisL]

That is going to move them underground. How'd that work with drugs or alcohol?

Going underground would be just fine. We have lots of prisons.

This doesn't even make sense. For one thing, if you push guns into the illegal market, they would be twice as difficult to trace. There would be no "background checks" or other such measures. Your argument is weak sauce.

Anyone found with a gun and not allowed to would go break rocks for ten years. They'll get the message in no time.

You mean like they do now? You are aware of course that your liberal judges do NOT in fact send criminals to jail for long over firearms possession?

You are aware, of course, that this is a ridiculous lie.

Plenty of people convicted of crimes involving guns don't serve the sentences they deserve. It's because of liberal "bleeding hearts" for the wrong people that they are allowed out early to victimize again and again. That's just one reason why we have such a huge problem with gang crime in our inner cities, like Detroit, Chicago, LA, etc., etc., etc.

 

[P@triot]

Sorry, Puddles, you are too insane to bother with if you believe that but it's nice to know you won't mind Muslim terrorists building nukes at home here.

Says the buffoon who just claimed it was "illegal" to build a pipe bomb at home...

 

[P@triot]

Plenty of people convicted of crimes involving guns don't serve the sentences they deserve. It's because of liberal "bleeding hearts" for the wrong people that they are allowed out early to victimize again and again. That's just one reason why we have such a huge problem with gang crime in our inner cities, like Detroit, Chicago, LA, etc., etc., etc.

Liberal "logic" - blame the inanimate object (of which they have a paralyzing fear), release the criminal maniac who lives to inflict pain and suffering on people.

 

[Moonglow]

That is going to move them underground. How'd that work with drugs or alcohol?

Going underground would be just fine. We have lots of prisons.

This doesn't even make sense. For one thing, if you push guns into the illegal market, they would be twice as difficult to trace. There would be no "background checks" or other such measures. Your argument is weak sauce.

Anyone found with a gun and not allowed to would go break rocks for ten years. They'll get the message in no time.

You mean like they do now? You are aware of course that your liberal judges do NOT in fact send criminals to jail for long over firearms possession?

You are aware, of course, that this is a ridiculous lie.

Yeah, it only ads 10 years to life on a sentence..

 

[ThunderKiss1965]

.... The previous section was simply the why. And the why (while important for sure in context), is largely irrelevant what it comes to the what. And the what is that the people have the right to keep and bear arms.

---
Before the "why" & "what" is the intent of the writers during their era.
.

Uh....no genius. Their intent was "the right of the people". Which is why they said "the right of the people".

---
The intent was to maintain "the security of a free state" and "A well regulated militia being necessary"
was how that intent was achieved during that era.
.

The security of a free state meant that the citizenry had the means to protect itself from a tyrannical government. The intent was made very clear in other writings by the Framers of the Constitution.
The Lessons Of History - The Founding Fathers On Right To Bear Arms

The 2nd Amendment does not have a but or an except for anywhere in it. If you believe the right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringe means it can then the only thing to do is get together with all of the other gun control wackadoodles and call for a constitutional amendment. I doubt you'll get many Representatives stupid enough to bring it up for a vote and you damn sure won't get many votes at the State level so shit out of luck doesn't quiet cover it.

Exactly. The second was put there EXPRESSELY for the purpose of (1) Defense of ones property and family and (2) to be used to overthrow a tyrannical government.

Problem is? Liberals do NOT believe in personal defense and they abhore the idea of "standing up" to the government - the same central government that feeds them.

There are also a few qoutes from the founding Fathers about personal defence of ones home and family out there. It is your right and duty to protect you and yours. The police no longer provent crimes so much as investigate the aftermath.

I should really start myself a link list to all of the articles and qoutes. I know Liberals won't look them up.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

I want to take away guns. That's all. There are plenty of non-lethal methods to defend yourself.

A gun being self defense is a lie.

Never going to happen here in America. Guns exist and they aren't going to just disappear.

Guns will be a thing of the past one day, since they already mostly are.

Really? What country do you live in?

Country? How about year? I live in 2016, not 1816.

Yes, 2016, and in 2016, many Americans are armed and more interest in carrying firearms; particularly women.

And?

Otherwise this fails as a bandwagon fallacy.

 

[Moonglow]

Going underground would be just fine. We have lots of prisons.

This doesn't even make sense. For one thing, if you push guns into the illegal market, they would be twice as difficult to trace. There would be no "background checks" or other such measures. Your argument is weak sauce.

Anyone found with a gun and not allowed to would go break rocks for ten years. They'll get the message in no time.

You mean like they do now? You are aware of course that your liberal judges do NOT in fact send criminals to jail for long over firearms possession?

You are aware, of course, that this is a ridiculous lie.

Plenty of people convicted of crimes involving guns don't serve the sentences they deserve. It's because of liberal "bleeding hearts" for the wrong people that they are allowed out early to victimize again and again. That's just one reason why we have such a huge problem with gang crime in our inner cities, like Detroit, Chicago, LA, etc., etc., etc.

Plea bargaining and lawyers all play the same games..But it's not liberals...