Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
well regulated in that time meant that all weapons were working properly and you had everything you needed for them to work. Such as ammunition.AMENDMENT 11 of the Bill of Rights:Well hell, how long have we been registering cars for the public roads? There's always some gun fetishist posting in his underwear on this site screaming about how many traffic fatalities versus gun murders ---- even though no car is intentionally designed for it and those are all accidents....
Have it both ways much?
A well regulated car, being necessary to the security of a productive State, the right of the people to keep and bear vehicles, shall not be infringed.
Great comparison! Registering cars is unconstitutional! Its in the bill of rights too!
That's pretty funny Harley.
I like how it brings to the forefront the term "well-regulated". I hadn't even thought of that but there it is.
I know in your statist mind you want it to mean something else, though...
Exactly...like regulating a clock...not writing a regulation.well regulated in that time meant that all weapons were working properly and you had everything you needed for them to work. Such as ammunition.AMENDMENT 11 of the Bill of Rights:Well hell, how long have we been registering cars for the public roads? There's always some gun fetishist posting in his underwear on this site screaming about how many traffic fatalities versus gun murders ---- even though no car is intentionally designed for it and those are all accidents....
Have it both ways much?
A well regulated car, being necessary to the security of a productive State, the right of the people to keep and bear vehicles, shall not be infringed.
Great comparison! Registering cars is unconstitutional! Its in the bill of rights too!
That's pretty funny Harley.
I like how it brings to the forefront the term "well-regulated". I hadn't even thought of that but there it is.
I know in your statist mind you want it to mean something else, though...
to bring order, method, or uniformity to
And that is the only interpretation that makes any sense.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
The correct interpretation...
An orderly and uniform militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
Compared to...
A Militia governed by governmental regulations, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
That's is jarringly incongruous and illogical.
The word I like to use to explain the context of "well regulated" is "regimented."
This is what you (Lying, cheating, fucktarded Dimz) voted for.
May it soon, bite you in the ass.
Zing!The translation from the original German is a little rough in places
No, I mean, in light of how many people are killed each year as a result of alcohol use (and it's not even designed to kill), why don't we get rid of the stuff?Well what about alcohol. We don't need it like we do cars, and yet it is killing all kinds of people, including kids. So why aren't we doing something about that?
We did, 18th amendment. Then we took it back 21st amendment.
That was for anyone who believes that banning all guns is justified.
However, if you believe that a ban on alcohol is going too far, you must still have some idea as to which specific alcoholic beverages need to be banned, which beverages would that be? I'm talking about assault-style beverages; you know the ones . . .
That was for anyone who believes that banning a semiautomatic rifle is justified.
Everclear.However, if you believe that a ban on alcohol is going too far, you must still have some idea as to which specific alcoholic beverages need to be banned, which beverages would that be? I'm talking about assault-style beverages; you know the ones . . .
That was for anyone who believes that banning a semiautomatic rifle is justified.
Here, let's start out this way. Do you advocate a homeowner's right to deal with a midnight intruder?No, I mean, in light of how many people are killed each year as a result of alcohol use (and it's not even designed to kill), why don't we get rid of the stuff?Well what about alcohol. We don't need it like we do cars, and yet it is killing all kinds of people, including kids. So why aren't we doing something about that?
We did, 18th amendment. Then we took it back 21st amendment.
That was for anyone who believes that banning all guns is justified.
However, if you believe that a ban on alcohol is going too far, you must still have some idea as to which specific alcoholic beverages need to be banned, which beverages would that be? I'm talking about assault-style beverages; you know the ones . . .
That was for anyone who believes that banning a semiautomatic rifle is justified.
Actually you posted that to me, and your question was "why don't we do something about that?", not "why don't we ban that?". "Doing something about" does not equal "ban".
But then it wasn't for me since I never advocated banning anything.
However, back to the alcohol, it might be a good idea to ban Boone's Farm "wine". And Miller Lite. Just because they're stupid.
Sure, notwithstanding some guy is drunk or high on drugs, shoots his neighbor and drags the body across his own threshold to establish justification for the homicide.Here, let's start out this way. Do you advocate a homeowner's right to deal with a midnight intruder?
We gotta ban AK-47s and whiskies.Everclear.However, if you believe that a ban on alcohol is going too far, you must still have some idea as to which specific alcoholic beverages need to be banned, which beverages would that be? I'm talking about assault-style beverages; you know the ones . . .
That was for anyone who believes that banning a semiautomatic rifle is justified.
Save your money and just swallow a chunk of burning charcoal, climb in the back of your buddies truck, knock yourself unconscious with a six pound sledge hammer and have him dump you out somewhere you've never been.
That's why they have Columbo.Sure, notwithstanding some guy is drunk or high on drugs, shoots his neighbor and drags the body across his own threshold to establish justification for the homicide.Here, let's start out this way. Do you advocate a homeowner's right to deal with a midnight intruder?
" But on the more basic level the Briss comparison is invalid, as alcohol is not a product intentionally designed to kill."Well what about alcohol. We don't need it like we do cars, and yet it is killing all kinds of people, including kids. So why aren't we doing something about that?
We did, 18th amendment. Then we took it back 21st amendment.
Plus, we already (still) do something about it --- age restrictions, drunk driving laws and "designated drivers", advertising laws --- and Prohibition still exists in some counties, just not on a federal level. The county I live in was "dry" when I moved here.
But on the more basic level the Briss comparison is invalid, as alcohol is not a product intentionally designed to kill.
Hmm, it's not designed to kill, but causes as many deaths as something designed to kill. Sounds dangerous. And the real kicker is that no one needs it. You can't hunt or defend yourself with it, so why are you not on the bandwagon to do something about that tragedy?
because to many people in congress drink...Well what about alcohol. We don't need it like we do cars, and yet it is killing all kinds of people, including kids. So why aren't we doing something about that?Well hell, how long have we been registering cars for the public roads? There's always some gun fetishist posting in his underwear on this site screaming about how many traffic fatalities versus gun murders ---- even though no car is intentionally designed for it and those are all accidents....
Have it both ways much?
Alcohol is a choice; cars and medication are not. Try again." But on the more basic level the Briss comparison is invalid, as alcohol is not a product intentionally designed to kill."Well what about alcohol. We don't need it like we do cars, and yet it is killing all kinds of people, including kids. So why aren't we doing something about that?
We did, 18th amendment. Then we took it back 21st amendment.
Plus, we already (still) do something about it --- age restrictions, drunk driving laws and "designated drivers", advertising laws --- and Prohibition still exists in some counties, just not on a federal level. The county I live in was "dry" when I moved here.
But on the more basic level the Briss comparison is invalid, as alcohol is not a product intentionally designed to kill.
Hmm, it's not designed to kill, but causes as many deaths as something designed to kill. Sounds dangerous. And the real kicker is that no one needs it. You can't hunt or defend yourself with it, so why are you not on the bandwagon to do something about that tragedy?
Because it's not my business to tell other people what they can do for fun. If it were a whole laundry list of things would be illegal, starting with raisins and ending with golf, with a boatload in between. But fortunately for everybody I'm Liberal so I won't do that.
And no, alcohol is not designed to kill, PERIOD. Cars aren't designed to kill, they crash. Planes and trains aren't designed to kill, they crash too. Tons of medications aren't designed to kill but that happens too.
Guns, on the other hand, are designed for one objective: War. Know what war is?
Guns save more lives than they take so.................Guns, on the other hand, are designed for one objective: War. Know what war is?
But people are dying, and all because selfish Americans won't give up their alcohol, and you're Okay with that?" But on the more basic level the Briss comparison is invalid, as alcohol is not a product intentionally designed to kill."Well what about alcohol. We don't need it like we do cars, and yet it is killing all kinds of people, including kids. So why aren't we doing something about that?
We did, 18th amendment. Then we took it back 21st amendment.
Plus, we already (still) do something about it --- age restrictions, drunk driving laws and "designated drivers", advertising laws --- and Prohibition still exists in some counties, just not on a federal level. The county I live in was "dry" when I moved here.
But on the more basic level the Briss comparison is invalid, as alcohol is not a product intentionally designed to kill.
Hmm, it's not designed to kill, but causes as many deaths as something designed to kill. Sounds dangerous. And the real kicker is that no one needs it. You can't hunt or defend yourself with it, so why are you not on the bandwagon to do something about that tragedy?
Because it's not my business to tell other people what they can do for fun. If it were a whole laundry list of things would be illegal, starting with raisins and ending with golf, with a boatload in between. But fortunately for everybody I'm Liberal so I won't do that.
And no, alcohol is not designed to kill, PERIOD. Cars aren't designed to kill, but they can crash. Planes and trains aren't designed to kill, they crash too. Tons of medications aren't designed to kill but that happens too. Thing is, cars, trains, planes, drugs don't kill when used as intended.
Guns, on the other hand, are designed for one objective: War. Know what war is?
Here, let's start out this way. Do you advocate a homeowner's right to deal with a midnight intruder?No, I mean, in light of how many people are killed each year as a result of alcohol use (and it's not even designed to kill), why don't we get rid of the stuff?Well what about alcohol. We don't need it like we do cars, and yet it is killing all kinds of people, including kids. So why aren't we doing something about that?
We did, 18th amendment. Then we took it back 21st amendment.
That was for anyone who believes that banning all guns is justified.
However, if you believe that a ban on alcohol is going too far, you must still have some idea as to which specific alcoholic beverages need to be banned, which beverages would that be? I'm talking about assault-style beverages; you know the ones . . .
That was for anyone who believes that banning a semiautomatic rifle is justified.
Actually you posted that to me, and your question was "why don't we do something about that?", not "why don't we ban that?". "Doing something about" does not equal "ban".
But then it wasn't for me since I never advocated banning anything.
However, back to the alcohol, it might be a good idea to ban Boone's Farm "wine". And Miller Lite. Just because they're stupid.
I read something about this...My pistol and I perfectly registered, but if I enter California I'm limited to a 10 round magazine,
Well hell, how long have we been registering cars for the public roads? There's always some gun fetishist posting in his underwear on this site screaming about how many traffic fatalities versus gun murders ---- even though no car is intentionally designed for it and those are all accidents....
Have it both ways much?
So when someone enters my house, you'd rather I didn't have a gun to defend myself?Here, let's start out this way. Do you advocate a homeowner's right to deal with a midnight intruder?No, I mean, in light of how many people are killed each year as a result of alcohol use (and it's not even designed to kill), why don't we get rid of the stuff?Well what about alcohol. We don't need it like we do cars, and yet it is killing all kinds of people, including kids. So why aren't we doing something about that?
We did, 18th amendment. Then we took it back 21st amendment.
That was for anyone who believes that banning all guns is justified.
However, if you believe that a ban on alcohol is going too far, you must still have some idea as to which specific alcoholic beverages need to be banned, which beverages would that be? I'm talking about assault-style beverages; you know the ones . . .
That was for anyone who believes that banning a semiautomatic rifle is justified.
Actually you posted that to me, and your question was "why don't we do something about that?", not "why don't we ban that?". "Doing something about" does not equal "ban".
But then it wasn't for me since I never advocated banning anything.
However, back to the alcohol, it might be a good idea to ban Boone's Farm "wine". And Miller Lite. Just because they're stupid.
"deal with"?
As opposed to, what, ignoring them?
Guns save more lives than they take so.................Guns, on the other hand, are designed for one objective: War. Know what war is?
Guns SAVE 90 TIMES more lives than they take! | We the ...
