Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[Yousaidwhat]

The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment right. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.

Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded

Oh come on now. I rarely hear about people using guns to defend themselves, it's a rare occasion. Most of the time it's people with guns abusing the second amendment and harming, harassing and contributing to crime and contributing to the climate of fear in America.

In that case we need to look at Criminals who are using the firearms to commit crimes.

Gangs and drug dealers protecting their drug trade.

Mental illness.

Fix these problems and the climate of fear may disappear.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Where does the Constitution say "gun"?

I see that you -choose- to be ignorant of the law.
That being the case, it is impossible for you to have an honest conversation in this regard.

I am aware of the law,....

Ah - so you ARE aware the fact that The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Good to see you fully understand that your attempt to interject weapons beyond firearms into the conversation is nothing but a red herring.

That is injected by others which is why we ask if nukes are allowed?

I responded to your argument that 'arms" means all weapons.
Why argue this when you know that it does not?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Sad how you honestly think that describing a hypothetical instance where a gun is of no help means that guns can never be of any help.

When 3 of 4 rapes would not be stopped by a gun....

Sad how you honestly think that citing this "fact" based in part on your suppositions means that guns can never be of any help
But....since no one else asked you to do so....
Prove yourclaim.
Be sure to not to to use your own suppositions as support.

I never said never. I said they are useless, which in most cases they are...

... and so, in some cases, they are useful, negating your claim they are useless.
Well done.

When 3 of 4 rapes would not be stopped by a gun....

Again: Prove your claim.
Be sure to not to to use your own suppositions as support.

My claim is easy, women don't shoot men they know and most won'tshoot a stranger.

This is your supposition; as such it does nothing to prove your claim.

And I'm not about to account for every possible exception here.

Your claim is that guns are useless in the prevention of rape -- unless you account for these exceptions, your claim cannot be proven true.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Guns in Iraq — Firearms, gun law and gun control

34 of every 100 people are terrorists, Puddles? Try again,

Jack-dressing-like-Jill "logic". I have to point to Iraq for reasons why I want to ban guns in the U.S.

Um...why can't you point to the U.S. for reasons why you want to ban guns:

Jack-dressing-like-Jill: "Oh....because that proves me wrong. I have to point to nation all the way on the other side of the world, which doesn't have U.S. laws, and then lie about that nation to make some form of an argument".

You said guns equal peace. Wrong.

They do. Tell me junior - how many mass shootings have we experienced in the White House? The place is packed with hundreds of people with access to thousands of fully automatic weapons.

I'm waiting.....

Shall I start by listing mass shootings on military bases? How about at gun ranges? How about street gangs, where they all have guns?

No guns, no mass shootings. Few guns in Japan, and good luck finding a mass shooting. The whole country is a gun-free zone to you.

Mass shootings on Military Reservations. Never occurred until WE were disarmed.

Gun Ranges. When those who decide to go to the range and start shooting people. Not the typical range user.

Street gangs. Criminals don't obey laws.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Shall I start by listing mass shootings on military bases?

J4J....you are truly the gift that keeps on giving.

I don't know whether to answer this one or let it sit out there for a while for everyone to enjoy and then give someone else the pleasure to enlighten you.

Damn. Sorry. I addressed it for you. My bad.

 

[P@triot]

Guns in Iraq — Firearms, gun law and gun control

34 of every 100 people are terrorists, Puddles? Try again,

Jack-dressing-like-Jill "logic". I have to point to Iraq for reasons why I want to ban guns in the U.S.

Um...why can't you point to the U.S. for reasons why you want to ban guns:

Jack-dressing-like-Jill: "Oh....because that proves me wrong. I have to point to nation all the way on the other side of the world, which doesn't have U.S. laws, and then lie about that nation to make some form of an argument".

You said guns equal peace. Wrong.

They do. Tell me junior - how many mass shootings have we experienced in the White House? The place is packed with hundreds of people with access to thousands of fully automatic weapons.

I'm waiting.....

Shall I start by listing mass shootings on military bases? How about at gun ranges? How about street gangs, where they all have guns?

No guns, no mass shootings. Few guns in Japan, and good luck finding a mass shooting. The whole country is a gun-free zone to you.

Mass shootings on Military Reservations. Never occurred until WE were disarmed.

Gun Ranges. When those who decide to go to the range and start shooting people. Not the typical range user.

Street gands. Criminals don't obey laws.

Bingo! Never had a "mass shooting" on a military base until idiot Bill Clinton thought that our own military should be disarmed. Next thing you know....we get mass shootings.

It's a special kind of stupid that can only be embraced by people like the Clinton's, J4J, and Candycorn.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

There are very few and far between. Most all of mass shootings take place in gun free zones: schools, military bases, movie theaters, churches, those places.

You mean, places where people go in large numbers?

How can there be a mass shooting if guns protect against them and even if true, when there are no guns there will be no shootings, right?

Kooks look for places to carry out their mass shootings. They don't want any resistance, so they choose places where law abiding citizens will not be armed. Then they can carry out their craziness.

Exactly why there should be no guns.

That's the point: there will never be No Guns!!!!

Yes, you can make laws to take them away from law abiding citizens, but you can't make laws to take them away from the criminals, because criminals are people that don't abide to laws.

Laws will just be the start. And no guns can be done but you'll hate it.

Going to be real hard to disarm America. We won't give them up. And when you come looking for them they won't be here. Oops! Sorry officer, I gave them up at the last buy back.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Japan and Iraq completely destroy what you believe. Suck it, Puddles.

And the founders didn't anticipate the guns you love so suck that as well.

Yes they did. They already had weapons that fired multiple rounds per second look up the Puckle Gun it was the first weapon to be refereed to as a machine gun. Patented in 1718. Regardless The Constitution says Right to bear arms. It doesn't say right to bear single shot, flint lock, smooth bore musket. .

Can you own a nuke, yes or no? It's an arm, right?

The worst weapon for personal defense. You can't target shoot with a nuke, sure as hell can't hunt with one, and the radiation a damaged one puts out will make you have a bad day. Liberals always pull that nuke shit out of their asses in a last ditch effort to win an argument.

It's an arm, not around 200 years. Should you be able to own one, yes or no?

Did you change your name from Brain357?.....you post the same stupidity he does....

I thought it was a Joesock.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Laws will just be the start. And no guns can be done but you'll hate it.

Well, I know you liberals hate logic, but can we try it here anyway?

• Marijuana is universally outlawed (federal law trumps state law chief so don't even attempt to point to Oregon or Colorado). Yet it is rampant.

• Heroin is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Cocaine is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Crack is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Meth is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Prostitution is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Many forms of gambling are universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

So tell us again how outlawing guns is going to make them disappear?

When gun control happens, they won't just be outlawed. They will be collected and destroyed.

Uh huh! Sure they will.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

According to the U.S. Constitution? Absolutely. Why is it ok for the people who answer to me to have one but not me? What world do you live in where the subordinates have more power and resources than leadership?!?

I answered your question honestly and concisely. Are you capable of doing the same for once?

Nukes are for nations, not persons. And even nations should not have them.

The Founders never would have approved of personal nukes, never.

BTW, your answer is that of a moron. I'm done responding to you.

So you trust Iran with one more than anyone here?

Far more. Iran is sane. Pissed, but sane.

So the same people that say that the Holocaust never happened and shout death to Israel and the US everyday you trust more than posters here?

Duly noted.

Words, words, words.

And that is all you have. Words words words.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Well, I know you liberals hate logic, but can we try it here anyway?

• Marijuana is universally outlawed (federal law trumps state law chief so don't even attempt to point to Oregon or Colorado). Yet it is rampant.

• Heroin is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Cocaine is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Crack is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Meth is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Prostitution is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Many forms of gambling are universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

So tell us again how outlawing guns is going to make them disappear?

When gun control happens, they won't just be outlawed. They will be collected and destroyed.

Can you go through the dynamics for us please?

The closest you can come to outlawing firearms is for the new SC court (If Hillary wins) to say that firearm ownership is no longer protected by the Constitution.

What that means is cities and states across the country (more likely liberal) could create laws against ownership or carrying of a firearm. That does not mean that conservative states have to do the same. In fact, conservative states can make guns even more available and easier to get a carry permit than ever.

On a national level, any President wanting to outlaw guns (or confiscate them) would have to get full approval by a majority of Congress and Senate. That's never going to happen..
And even if Democrats were able to pull that off, it would be the end of their leadership for decades in the White House and both Congress and Senate.

But keep dreaming.......we all have dreams you know.

Flying was once a dream, walking on the moon, cars that drive themselves. Time is on my side.

In your Liberal utopian world the 80 year old lady in the story would have been beaten and probally murdered . In your dreamy world the 80 year old great grandmother has no right to protect herself, home or family.

Great-granny, 80, got a gun, kills a home intruder who attacked husband | Fox News

Ever heard of non-lethal weapons?

Yes. When are you going to stop torturing animals with them.

 

[PK1]

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.

---
That's my point. The 2nd Amendment says we can keep/bear arms, but they can be regulated.
.

And they are! Heavily.

---
"Heavily" is a relative term. And our social reality is different now than 200+ years ago; "arms" are a lot more lethal, e.g., plastic bombs & automatic short rifles w/ super destructive bullets.

The bottom line is public safety or "the security of a free state".
The debate should be about that, not profits for gun manufacturers or fun for gun fanatics, both represented by NRA. If NRA regulated itself, its members, then gov/voters would not need to step in to focus on "public safety" ... which has its own relative viewpoints!
Obviously, not a simple black/white issue.
.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

It has already been shown that the people not the militia hold the right to keep and bear arms

"bear arms" doesn't have anything to do with whether it's the militia or the people who have the right.

The people have the right to "bear arms", that doesn't stop the right to bear arms being the right to "render military service" or "militia duty" as stated quite clearly by the founding fathers.

Here we go again.

One more time for those who missed it.

Militia. An Army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

 

[Yousaidwhat]

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.

---
That's my point. The 2nd Amendment says we can keep/bear arms, but they can be regulated.
.

And they are! Heavily.

---
"Heavily" is a relative term. And our social reality is different now than 200+ years ago; "arms" are a lot more lethal, e.g., plastic bombs & automatic short rifles w/ super destructive bullets.

The bottom line is public safety or "the security of a free state".
The debat should be about that, not profits for gun manufacturers or fun for gun fanatics, both represented by NRA. If NRA regulated itself, its members, then gov/voters would not need to step in to focus on "public safety" ... which has its own relative viewpoints!
Obviously, not a simple black/white issue.
.

You want to focus on public safety. Fine. I'm with you.

Address the Criminals, gangs, drug dealers and the mentally ill.

We have enough laws to address public safety. Disarming law abiding citizens will not address public safety concerns.

 

[M14 Shooter]

"Heavily" is a relative term. And our social reality is different now than 200+ years ago; "arms" are a lot more lethal, e.g., plastic bombs & automatic short rifles w/ super destructive bullets.

Heh.
Can you prove an example of an "automatic short rifle"?
A "super destructive bullet"?

The bottom line is public safety or "the security of a free state".

These terms do not mean the same thing.

The debate should be about that...

Feel free to debate that, keeping in mind that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home; saidl 2nd Amendment states that said rights "shall not be infringed".

 

[Yousaidwhat]

Isn't it odd that many of the same people so scared of 'democracy' insist on the democratization of firearm ownership?
What would happen if all these 'gun' owners suddenly heard a news story (read, 'rumor'), and took to the streets in a 'democratic' display and started shooting up the 'enemy' (minority)? The 'we're-not-a-democracy-we're-a-republic' proponents may wish to meditate on that.

I'm quite sure that those gun owners would not just take to the streets and start firing at their friends neighbors and families.

Let's meditate on that.

 

[candycorn]

That shuts them up every time....

Really? Because I obliterated her ignorant "are you allowed to own nukes" question. Obliterated. To the point that she had no response.

You never answered the question.

Yes I did. Go back and read it genius. Plus there is a lot more I can add to it if you'd like.

I did. You didn’t.

 

[candycorn]

You have a limited right, and that will go away eventually.

I have an unlimited right junior. And there is nothing you can about it. Which is why you are so pissed off.

We’ll see what the Supreme Court says after Hillary gets 400 EVs…. tick tock tick tock tick tock

 

[P@triot]

That shuts them up every time....

Really? Because I obliterated her ignorant "are you allowed to own nukes" question. Obliterated. To the point that she had no response.

You never answered the question.

Yes I did. Go back and read it genius. Plus there is a lot more I can add to it if you'd like.

I did. You didn’t.

Proving yet again that you lie and that you are completely ignorant. Here you go Candy....

I gave a simple answer in post #362 on page #37

And an in-depth response in post #369 on page #37

And by the way - I haven't even given the best reasons yet. I'm waiting for a libtard to have any kind of logical response before I break out the point that will destroy any stupid think you people have to say about nukes. So please (and I'm serious - please) come up with some even remotely logical response so I can humiliate you people and put this nonsensical and desperate position away once and for all!

 

[P@triot]

You have a limited right, and that will go away eventually.

I have an unlimited right junior. And there is nothing you can about it. Which is why you are so pissed off.

We’ll see what the Supreme Court says after Hillary gets 400 EVs…. tick tock tick tock tick tock

Thankfully for the American people.....neither the Supreme Court nor Hilldabeast get to decide my Constitutional right. That's the beauty of a right my dear. It's non-negotiable and cannot be revoked (unless the Constitution is amended of course and - well - good luck with that).