Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[Wry Catcher]

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

LOL One more example ^^^ of a member of the right crazy right wing working to discredit Democrats by believing he can convince women that the party which opposed the equal rights amendment really cares about the rights of women. Which party passed the Lilly Ledbetter Law, and which opposed it? Which Party will soon nominate the first women to be their standard bearer come November, and which party nominated a token Hockey Mom? Which party has put forth nine women to represent them in the US Senate?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You are ridiculous. Lol.

So controlling bombs is okay but not guns? Do we use bombs in war? Do we use guns?

Both are weapons but why is it only okay to control one, not the other?

Criminals in places like Iraq do in fact use bombs. If you take away one weapon, they will use another and perhaps more destructive weapon in it's place. Besides the fact that guns are never going to go away. They exist . . . period. If you "ban" them, you are just pushing that industry into the black market where there is no way to trace or "control" anything.

Once banned the control takes over. It won't be perfect but the prisons filling up won't be a problem. To pay for them we will take everything they own, and sell to guns off to the armies of the world.

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.

You're a pansy for wanting to protect your own life and perhaps your family?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

Are you sure? I thought the 2nd Amendment was a single sentence that began with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...". What 2nd Amendment are you using?

I am sure. It clearly states "the right of the people". The right belongs to the people. There is simply no denying it.

The right of the people is clearly defined as for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated Militia. That is why the Amendment starts out with the purpose of the Amendment. You do not understand the meaning of Militia and how the SCOTUS has judged and confirmed its meaning since the inception of the United States.

Every person 17 to 45 is a member of the militia there fore EVERY person 17 to 45 has the right to own possess and bear arms thanks for playing.

But there is no “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ibid

Just like you claim no one calls for removing firearms all the time I claim no one calls for any firearm anywhere anytime.

 

[ChrisL]

In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.

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.

The MILLIONS of people who were executed under the leadership of Saddam Hussein would disagree.

 

[there4eyeM]

I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.

In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.

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.

...and should logically have been disarmed, guns confiscated, (after the illegal U.S. invasion), the way Germans were after WWII.

 

[Jack4jill]

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

Yeah...I also live in 2016, not 1816, so you need to shut the hell up right now. After all, the Constitution never granted you 1st Amendment rights over the internet.

That you got right. It doesn't.

 

[Jack4jill]

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.

The MILLIONS of people who were executed under the leadership of Saddam Hussein would disagree.

Millions? No.

 

[Jack4jill]

So controlling bombs is okay but not guns? Do we use bombs in war? Do we use guns?

Both are weapons but why is it only okay to control one, not the other?

Criminals in places like Iraq do in fact use bombs. If you take away one weapon, they will use another and perhaps more destructive weapon in it's place. Besides the fact that guns are never going to go away. They exist . . . period. If you "ban" them, you are just pushing that industry into the black market where there is no way to trace or "control" anything.

Once banned the control takes over. It won't be perfect but the prisons filling up won't be a problem. To pay for them we will take everything they own, and sell to guns off to the armies of the world.

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.

My arguments make perfect sense in real world scenarios. You don't even HAVE an argument. It is weak sauce, like you. Like I said, if you are afraid of guns, don't like them, then don't have one. You have no right to tell other people who have not broken any laws that they cannot own them. They have a constitutional right to own them, like it or not. That is how it goes in OUR country.

I am not afraid of guns, you fear for your safety.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

rott, losing the same argument on two threads

candy....upset she's been defeated on her same insane argument in two different threads. She wants to disarm women so that they are vulnerable to attacks

Democrats want to disarm everybody so they are vulnerable to attacks.

And most conservatives are liars, this post is one of many examples.

This also fails as a straw man fallacy, as democrats seek to do no such thing.

Indeed, not only is no one seeking to ‘disarm everybody,’ but the notion is ignorant idiocy, as any jurisdiction that enactes a measure ‘authoring’ citizens being ‘disarmed’ would be enjoined and invalidated by the courts as a violation of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

Second Amendment: there exists an individual right of citizens to possess firearms pursuant to the right of self-defense.

Fourth Amendment: prohibiting government from the unwarranted search and seizure of private property, where a neutral magistrate would never issue a warrant authorizing government to search and seize firearms in violation of the Second Amendment.

Fifth Amendment – private property may not be taken absent due process and just compensation; the process of adjudicating each and every firearm taken and determining just compensation would be logistically far too burdensome to execute in a timely manner, rendering government in violation of the Fifth Amendment should it seek to ‘disarm everybody.’

It’s difficult to tell which is more pathetic: the propensity of most on the right to lie or the comprehensive ignorance of the law common to most conservatives.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

The MILLIONS of people who were executed under the leadership of Saddam Hussein would disagree.

Millions? No.

They were STILL finding mass graves when our troops were occupying Iraq.

Number of victims[edit]
Estimates as to the number of Iraqis killed by Saddam's regime vary from roughly a quarter to half a million,[9][10] including 50,000 to 182,000 Kurds and 25,000 to 280,000 killed during the repression of the 1991 rebellion.[11][12] Estimates for the number of dead in the Iran-Iraq war range upwards from 300,000.[13]

Other atrocities[edit]
Of nearly 2 million refugees created by the 1991 crackdown on dissent, it is estimated that 1,000 died every day for a period of months due to unsanitary and inhumane conditions.[14] The destruction of Shi'ite religious shrines by Hussein's regime has been called "comparable to the levelling of cities in the Second World War, and the damage to the shrines [of Hussein and Abbas] was more serious than that which had been done to many European cathedrals."[15]Methods of torture used by Hussein's regime included assault with brass knuckles and wooden bludgeons; electric shocks to the genitalia; scorched metal rods being forced into body orifices; the crushing of toes and removal of toenails; burning off limbs; lowering prisoners into vats of acid; poisoning with thallium; raping women in front of their family members; burning with cigarette butts; the crushing of bones; the amputation of ears, limbs, and tongues; and the gouging of eyes.[16] After the 1983-88 genocide, some 1 million Kurds were allowed to resettle in "model villages". According to a U.S. Senate staff report, these villages "were poorly constructed, had minimal sanitation and water, and provided few employment opportunities for the residents. Some, if not most, were surrounded by barbed wire, and Kurds could enter or leave only with difficulty."[17]

 

[Camp]

I have been backpacking in National Parks and Forest for decades. Until Obama signed a law allowing for firearms in the National Parks and Forest, it was forbidden. People hiking and backpacking or camping in those places were not allowed to have firearms. It was a Federal offense. Now it isn't. Now it is OK. So, Obama has supported gun carry rights in America. You can go camping and carry your weapons of choice.
So, there is an example of a pro-gun law Obama promoted. Does anyone have a good example of an anti-gun law he promoted or signed into law that would take away any of my gun rights?

He doesn't have the ability to thanks to our Constitution. That may change if people are stupid enough to elect Hilarious. If she is in charge of appointing judges to the SC, we are all screwed.

I was just making the point that for me personally, and others who share my pastime, sport, leisure, whatever, my gun rights have been expanded under Obama. Perhaps someone else has had a different experience.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.

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.

 

[ChrisL]

Criminals in places like Iraq do in fact use bombs. If you take away one weapon, they will use another and perhaps more destructive weapon in it's place. Besides the fact that guns are never going to go away. They exist . . . period. If you "ban" them, you are just pushing that industry into the black market where there is no way to trace or "control" anything.

Once banned the control takes over. It won't be perfect but the prisons filling up won't be a problem. To pay for them we will take everything they own, and sell to guns off to the armies of the world.

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.

My arguments make perfect sense in real world scenarios. You don't even HAVE an argument. It is weak sauce, like you. Like I said, if you are afraid of guns, don't like them, then don't have one. You have no right to tell other people who have not broken any laws that they cannot own them. They have a constitutional right to own them, like it or not. That is how it goes in OUR country.

I am not afraid of guns, you fear for your safety.

You are afraid of guns, obviously. Lol. You are also in fear of a woman like me defending myself.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

rott, losing the same argument on two threads

candy....upset she's been defeated on her same insane argument in two different threads. She wants to disarm women so that they are vulnerable to attacks

Democrats want to disarm everybody so they are vulnerable to attacks.

And most conservatives are liars, this post is one of many examples.

This also fails as a straw man fallacy, as democrats seek to do no such thing.

Indeed, not only is no one seeking to ‘disarm everybody,’ but the notion is ignorant idiocy, as any jurisdiction that enactes a measure ‘authoring’ citizens being ‘disarmed’ would be enjoined and invalidated by the courts as a violation of the Second, Fourth, and Fifth Amendments to the Constitution.

Second Amendment: there exists an individual right of citizens to possess firearms pursuant to the right of self-defense.

Fourth Amendment: prohibiting government from the unwarranted search and seizure of private property, where a neutral magistrate would never issue a warrant authorizing government to search and seize firearms in violation of the Second Amendment.

Fifth Amendment – private property may not be taken absent due process and just compensation; the process of adjudicating each and every firearm taken and determining just compensation would be logistically far too burdensome to execute in a timely manner, rendering government in violation of the Fifth Amendment should it seek to ‘disarm everybody.’

It’s difficult to tell which is more pathetic: the propensity of most on the right to lie or the comprehensive ignorance of the law common to most conservatives.

Is THAT why until a Supreme Court decision YEARS after enactment Washington DC banned all private ownership? Or why in Chicago the same was true?

 

[Jack4jill]

So controlling bombs is okay but not guns? Do we use bombs in war? Do we use guns?

Both are weapons but why is it only okay to control one, not the other?

Criminals in places like Iraq do in fact use bombs. If you take away one weapon, they will use another and perhaps more destructive weapon in it's place. Besides the fact that guns are never going to go away. They exist . . . period. If you "ban" them, you are just pushing that industry into the black market where there is no way to trace or "control" anything.

Once banned the control takes over. It won't be perfect but the prisons filling up won't be a problem. To pay for them we will take everything they own, and sell to guns off to the armies of the world.

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.

 

[ChrisL]

Banning guns will only accomplish one thing. Disarming the law abiding portion of the population. The criminals will still have their weapons of choice and be more "free" to obtain them than ever.

 

[ChrisL]

Criminals in places like Iraq do in fact use bombs. If you take away one weapon, they will use another and perhaps more destructive weapon in it's place. Besides the fact that guns are never going to go away. They exist . . . period. If you "ban" them, you are just pushing that industry into the black market where there is no way to trace or "control" anything.

Once banned the control takes over. It won't be perfect but the prisons filling up won't be a problem. To pay for them we will take everything they own, and sell to guns off to the armies of the world.

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.

 

[Jack4jill]

Once banned the control takes over. It won't be perfect but the prisons filling up won't be a problem. To pay for them we will take everything they own, and sell to guns off to the armies of the world.

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.

My arguments make perfect sense in real world scenarios. You don't even HAVE an argument. It is weak sauce, like you. Like I said, if you are afraid of guns, don't like them, then don't have one. You have no right to tell other people who have not broken any laws that they cannot own them. They have a constitutional right to own them, like it or not. That is how it goes in OUR country.

I am not afraid of guns, you fear for your safety.

You are afraid of guns, obviously. Lol. You are also in fear of a woman like me defending myself.

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

Go to a self defense class and stop trying to cheat by packing heat.

 

[ChrisL]

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.

My arguments make perfect sense in real world scenarios. You don't even HAVE an argument. It is weak sauce, like you. Like I said, if you are afraid of guns, don't like them, then don't have one. You have no right to tell other people who have not broken any laws that they cannot own them. They have a constitutional right to own them, like it or not. That is how it goes in OUR country.

I am not afraid of guns, you fear for your safety.

You are afraid of guns, obviously. Lol. You are also in fear of a woman like me defending myself.

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

Go to a self defense and stop trying to cheat by packing heat.

That's for me to decide, thanks.

 

[Jack4jill]

Once banned the control takes over. It won't be perfect but the prisons filling up won't be a problem. To pay for them we will take everything they own, and sell to guns off to the armies of the world.

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.