Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[P@triot]

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

I like your post.

But a clarification, you do realize that we are FREE PEOPLE and the 2A EMPHASIZES our ABSOLUTE RIGHT to bear arms. The right is protected by the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment.

Otherwise the dingleberries will retort the the 2A only applies to militias.

I'm not sure where you are getting out of my post that we don't have an absolute right to bear arms. We do and no where do I state otherwise. Furthermore, as I've pointed out to libtards many times, it does not say "muskets" or "hand guns" - as in, our absolute right goes far beyond just a gun. It is limitless in the type of weapon we can own. Limitless.

Freedom of the press - in the Constitution - doesn't exclude child pornography, does it?

Good grief. This is a sure sign of desperation. Lol.

Rottweiler says the 2nd Amendment is 'limitless'. If he's right, isn't the 1st Amendment also 'limitless'?

Is the 1st Amendment "limitless"? Abso-freaking-lutely. But how is sending child-pornography "free speech"? It's not. At all. Speech is words that come out of your mouth. It's not photographs of children.

 

[P@triot]

She fled the interview. Big surprise.

She didn't "flee". She's been owning liberals for hundreds of pages now. She's absolutely annihilated your side of the aisle with facts.

 

[NYcarbineer]

She fled the interview. Big surprise.

She didn't "flee". She's been owning liberals for hundreds of pages now. She's absolutely annihilated your side of the aisle with facts.

Cite me the text in the 1st Amendment that excludes child pornography from freedom of the press protection.

Word for word please.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I like your post.

But a clarification, you do realize that we are FREE PEOPLE and the 2A EMPHASIZES our ABSOLUTE RIGHT to bear arms. The right is protected by the Constitution and the Ninth Amendment.

Otherwise the dingleberries will retort the the 2A only applies to militias.

I'm not sure where you are getting out of my post that we don't have an absolute right to bear arms. We do and no where do I state otherwise. Furthermore, as I've pointed out to libtards many times, it does not say "muskets" or "hand guns" - as in, our absolute right goes far beyond just a gun. It is limitless in the type of weapon we can own. Limitless.

Freedom of the press - in the Constitution - doesn't exclude child pornography, does it?

Good grief. This is a sure sign of desperation. Lol.

Rottweiler says the 2nd Amendment is 'limitless'. If he's right, isn't the 1st Amendment also 'limitless'?

Is the 1st Amendment "limitless"? Abso-freaking-lutely. But how is sending child-pornography "free speech"? It's not. At all. Speech is words that come out of your mouth. It's not photographs of children.

Publishing child pornography is a function of the PRESS. Freedom of the press has limitless protection in the 1st Amendment, according to you.

That means, according to YOU, all laws against publishing child pornography must be unconstitutional.

 

[P@triot]

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes child pornography from 1st Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 2nd Amendment guys here are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT.

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes fully automatic weapons from 2nd Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 1st Amendment libtards are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT. If the founders couldn't possibly have seen the advancement in weapons technology and never meant for the Constitution to protect that, then they also couldn't possibly have seen the internet, cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, texts, etc. which can spread disinformation and misinformation around the globe in milliseconds.

Oops....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes child pornography from 1st Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 2nd Amendment guys here are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT.

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes fully automatic weapons from 2nd Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 1st Amendment libtards are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT. If the founders couldn't possibly have seen the advancement in weapons technology and never meant for the Constitution to protect that, then they also couldn't possibly have seen the internet, cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, texts, etc. which can spread disinformation and misinformation around the globe in milliseconds.

Oops....

So you agree that laws against child pornography are unconstitutional. lol

 

[P@triot]

I'm not sure where you are getting out of my post that we don't have an absolute right to bear arms. We do and no where do I state otherwise. Furthermore, as I've pointed out to libtards many times, it does not say "muskets" or "hand guns" - as in, our absolute right goes far beyond just a gun. It is limitless in the type of weapon we can own. Limitless.

Freedom of the press - in the Constitution - doesn't exclude child pornography, does it?

Good grief. This is a sure sign of desperation. Lol.

Rottweiler says the 2nd Amendment is 'limitless'. If he's right, isn't the 1st Amendment also 'limitless'?

Is the 1st Amendment "limitless"? Abso-freaking-lutely. But how is sending child-pornography "free speech"? It's not. At all. Speech is words that come out of your mouth. It's not photographs of children.

Publishing child pornography is a function of the PRESS. Freedom of the press has limitless protection in the 1st Amendment, according to you.

That means, according to YOU, all laws against publishing child pornography must be unconstitutional.

Again, press is words. Not pictures. And yes, you can absolutely SAY anything about children and sexuality. You can't take photos of them though. Your desperately grasping at straws here and looking pretty ridiculous.

Press is NOT photographs. They are WORDS. As is speech.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes child pornography from 1st Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 2nd Amendment guys here are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT.

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes fully automatic weapons from 2nd Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 1st Amendment libtards are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT. If the founders couldn't possibly have seen the advancement in weapons technology and never meant for the Constitution to protect that, then they also couldn't possibly have seen the internet, cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, texts, etc. which can spread disinformation and misinformation around the globe in milliseconds.

Oops....

The reason automatic weapons can be restricted is that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to rule so.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Freedom of the press - in the Constitution - doesn't exclude child pornography, does it?

Good grief. This is a sure sign of desperation. Lol.

Rottweiler says the 2nd Amendment is 'limitless'. If he's right, isn't the 1st Amendment also 'limitless'?

Is the 1st Amendment "limitless"? Abso-freaking-lutely. But how is sending child-pornography "free speech"? It's not. At all. Speech is words that come out of your mouth. It's not photographs of children.

Publishing child pornography is a function of the PRESS. Freedom of the press has limitless protection in the 1st Amendment, according to you.

That means, according to YOU, all laws against publishing child pornography must be unconstitutional.

Again, press is words. Not pictures. And yes, you can absolutely SAY anything about children and sexuality. You can't take photos of them though. Your desperately grasping at straws here and looking pretty ridiculous.

Press is NOT photographs. They are WORDS. As is speech.

Bullshit. Since when did newspapers and magazines etc., not have pictures?

 

[P@triot]

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes child pornography from 1st Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 2nd Amendment guys here are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT.

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes fully automatic weapons from 2nd Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 1st Amendment libtards are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT. If the founders couldn't possibly have seen the advancement in weapons technology and never meant for the Constitution to protect that, then they also couldn't possibly have seen the internet, cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, texts, etc. which can spread disinformation and misinformation around the globe in milliseconds.

Oops....

So you agree that laws against child pornography are unconstitutional. lol

You seem desperate for that to be the case. Not entirely sure why. But no - freedom of speech and freedom of press are about WORDS. Photography didn't even exist back when the U.S. Constitution was written (whereas guns, cannons, etc. did).

You're really looking ridiculous here grasping this desperately at straws. Are you sure you don't want to try another approach?

 

[P@triot]

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes child pornography from 1st Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 2nd Amendment guys here are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT.

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes fully automatic weapons from 2nd Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 1st Amendment libtards are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT. If the founders couldn't possibly have seen the advancement in weapons technology and never meant for the Constitution to protect that, then they also couldn't possibly have seen the internet, cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, texts, etc. which can spread disinformation and misinformation around the globe in milliseconds.

Oops....

The reason automatic weapons can be restricted is that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to rule so.

No it didn't. I've read the Constitution top to bottom and no where did it grant any governing body to restrict it. I dare you to even attempt to show me what part. Go ahead. Copy and Paste the exact section. Good luck....

 

[NYcarbineer]

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes child pornography from 1st Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 2nd Amendment guys here are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT.

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes fully automatic weapons from 2nd Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 1st Amendment libtards are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT. If the founders couldn't possibly have seen the advancement in weapons technology and never meant for the Constitution to protect that, then they also couldn't possibly have seen the internet, cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, texts, etc. which can spread disinformation and misinformation around the globe in milliseconds.

Oops....

So you agree that laws against child pornography are unconstitutional. lol

You seem desperate for that to be the case. Not entirely sure why. But no - freedom of speech and freedom of press are about WORDS. Photography didn't even exist back when the U.S. Constitution was written (whereas guns, cannons, etc. did).

You're really looking ridiculous here grasping this desperately at straws. Are you sure you don't want to try another approach?

So photography and automatic weapons didn't exist at the time of the framing?

lolol, oops.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes child pornography from 1st Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 2nd Amendment guys here are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT.

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes fully automatic weapons from 2nd Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 1st Amendment libtards are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT. If the founders couldn't possibly have seen the advancement in weapons technology and never meant for the Constitution to protect that, then they also couldn't possibly have seen the internet, cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, texts, etc. which can spread disinformation and misinformation around the globe in milliseconds.

Oops....

The reason automatic weapons can be restricted is that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to rule so.

No it didn't. I've read the Constitution top to bottom and no where did it grant any governing body to restrict it. I dare you to even attempt to show me what part. Go ahead. Copy and Paste the exact section. Good luck....

If the Supreme Court doesn't have the power of judicial review, how is it able to rule on gun laws and decide they are unconstitutional?

 

[NYcarbineer]

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes child pornography from 1st Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 2nd Amendment guys here are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT.

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes fully automatic weapons from 2nd Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 1st Amendment libtards are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT. If the founders couldn't possibly have seen the advancement in weapons technology and never meant for the Constitution to protect that, then they also couldn't possibly have seen the internet, cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, texts, etc. which can spread disinformation and misinformation around the globe in milliseconds.

Oops....

The reason automatic weapons can be restricted is that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to rule so.

No it didn't. I've read the Constitution top to bottom and no where did it grant any governing body to restrict it. I dare you to even attempt to show me what part. Go ahead. Copy and Paste the exact section. Good luck....

Are you saying that all the attempts to get all or part of Obamacare ruled unconstitutional were out of line because the Supreme Court has no power to decide any such things?

 

[P@triot]

Good grief. This is a sure sign of desperation. Lol.

Rottweiler says the 2nd Amendment is 'limitless'. If he's right, isn't the 1st Amendment also 'limitless'?

Is the 1st Amendment "limitless"? Abso-freaking-lutely. But how is sending child-pornography "free speech"? It's not. At all. Speech is words that come out of your mouth. It's not photographs of children.

Publishing child pornography is a function of the PRESS. Freedom of the press has limitless protection in the 1st Amendment, according to you.

That means, according to YOU, all laws against publishing child pornography must be unconstitutional.

Again, press is words. Not pictures. And yes, you can absolutely SAY anything about children and sexuality. You can't take photos of them though. Your desperately grasping at straws here and looking pretty ridiculous.

Press is NOT photographs. They are WORDS. As is speech.

Bullshit. Since when did newspapers and magazines etc., not have pictures?

LMAO! The entire 1700's and most of the 1800's - until photography was invented.

What kind of stupid ass "logic" is that. Because Time magazine has picture in 2016 that makes it part of the "press"?

The press is about WORDS. And you can 100% say anything about children, sexuality, etc. You can tell a story about raping a child and it's legal (so long as you didn't actually rape a child and it's just a made up story).

 

[P@triot]

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes child pornography from 1st Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 2nd Amendment guys here are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT.

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes fully automatic weapons from 2nd Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 1st Amendment libtards are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT. If the founders couldn't possibly have seen the advancement in weapons technology and never meant for the Constitution to protect that, then they also couldn't possibly have seen the internet, cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, texts, etc. which can spread disinformation and misinformation around the globe in milliseconds.

Oops....

The reason automatic weapons can be restricted is that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to rule so.

No it didn't. I've read the Constitution top to bottom and no where did it grant any governing body to restrict it. I dare you to even attempt to show me what part. Go ahead. Copy and Paste the exact section. Good luck....

Are you saying that all the attempts to get all or part of Obamacare ruled unconstitutional were out of line because the Supreme Court has no power to decide any such things?

No. Quite the contrary - that is a perfect example of why the Supreme Court exist. To rule on legislation (such as Obamacare) and whether or not it is legal/Constitutional. However, that is a FAR cry from deciding what the Constitution itself means.

If Obamacare was in the Constitution, then the Supreme Court would have NO authority to decide what Obamacare meant or didn't mean, covered or didn't cover, etc.

 

[P@triot]

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes child pornography from 1st Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 2nd Amendment guys here are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT.

Find the text of the Constitution that excludes fully automatic weapons from 2nd Amendment protection.

Keep in mind, the 1st Amendment libtards are making the SAME EXACT ARGUMENT. If the founders couldn't possibly have seen the advancement in weapons technology and never meant for the Constitution to protect that, then they also couldn't possibly have seen the internet, cell phones, Facebook, Twitter, texts, etc. which can spread disinformation and misinformation around the globe in milliseconds.

Oops....

The reason automatic weapons can be restricted is that the Constitution gives the Supreme Court the power to rule so.

No it didn't. I've read the Constitution top to bottom and no where did it grant any governing body to restrict it. I dare you to even attempt to show me what part. Go ahead. Copy and Paste the exact section. Good luck....

If the Supreme Court doesn't have the power of judicial review, how is it able to rule on gun laws and decide they are unconstitutional?

They aren't able to. Just because they do anyway is like saying "if rape wasn't legal and ok, why do women get raped every single day in this country". People break the law. Especially liberal politicians desperate to usurp the Constitution and impose their ideology on society.

 

[P@triot]

Japan, few guns and very peaceful. Iraq, many guns and no peace.

Try again, Puddles.

That's due to culture and not the "tool".

That's incorrect. Iraq was peaceful, before Bush. You can have peace with or without guns. That is what scares your ilk.

Iraq has never been peaceful. Not for thousands of years. It was, at best, "controlled" by a ruthless murderous and insane dictatorial regime.

Iraq under a dictator was very peaceful. Dictatorships usually are.

Obviously you never read the stories of what living in Iraq was like under Saddam.

His demon son used to pick out girls at random, kill their boyfriend or husband, and take them to a place where they were repeatedly raped. Then he would imprison them underground so they could never talk. Saddam was known for doing things like busting into people homes he suspected had information he wanted, taking a baby out of his crib, and burning his eyes out with his cigar until the father started talking. I'm also sure you didn't read any stories where he did use WMD"s against his foreign enemies.

Yep, that Saddam was a real prince and things were so peaceful in Iraq.

Foreign enemies?!? Saddam had "Chemical Ali" unleash WMD's against his own Iraqi's (the kurds in the North).

 

[P@triot]

A gun is not a defensive weapon. It never was.

Really? So police carry guns to offensively attack people (murder)? The FBI carry guns to offensively attack people (murder)? The ATF carry guns to offensively attack people (murder)? The US Marshals carry guns to offensively attack people (murder)?

How stupid do you look right now?

 

[P@triot]

Seriously, you need to work on your arguments as well as your piss poor presentation.

Your argument boils down to, I like guns, they make my pansy ass feel safe.

Your a pansy for wanting to protect your own life and perhaps your family?

No, but you don't need a gun for that, just like you don't need a nuclear or a biological weapon.

Then don't own a gun. Simple. Don't tell me what I do or do not need. That is not for you to decide for another person. Mind your business, busybody.

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

Bwahahahaha! Yes you can dumb ass! I've already addressed that right here in this very thread. Good grief, how stupid are you libtards?!?!

Schumer pushes to close loophole allowing homemade bombs

http://www.amny.com/news/sen-chuck-...aking-with-household-items-loophole-1.9820711