The 2nd Amendment for dumbocrats

[kaz]

How sad is it that a 15 year old understands the problem, the solutions, the Constitution, the facts, and the issue exponentially more thoroughly than every liberal in America?

Because the 15 year old has intellectual honesty. The left groupthink a transactional position and then justify it. The reason they give is never the reason. The simple test of that is when they make yet another stupid argument, ask them, so, if that weren't true, then you would change your position and support the other side? No. Well, that's not the reason for your position then, is it? Try it, it is useful in practically every discussion with them.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

In other words, the Constitution contains no provisions ceding to the federal government a person’s right to keep and bear arms; thus the federal government has no authority to infringe in this area

So you don't think the framers meant that government can decide who gets this particular right and license the ones they think should get it charging them application and ongoing fees to maintain it?



Hmm...maybe you're right...

interestingly the Bill of Rights was not in the original Constitution because it was feared that if government became responsible for protecting a right it would take that right away!! Sure enough that is what the liberal is trying to do at every turn!

 

[kaz]

In other words, the Constitution contains no provisions ceding to the federal government a person’s right to keep and bear arms; thus the federal government has no authority to infringe in this area

So you don't think the framers meant that government can decide who gets this particular right and license the ones they think should get it charging them application and ongoing fees to maintain it?



Hmm...maybe you're right...

interestingly the Bill of Rights was not in the original Constitution because it was feared that if government became responsible for protecting a right it would take that right away!! Sure enough that is what the liberal is trying to do at every turn!

Yep:

Alexander Hamilton - "I go further, and affirm, that Bills of Rights, in the sense and to the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed Constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colorable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why, for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed?"

 

[P@triot]

Nobody is more qualified to speak about security and preventing incidents than Dan Bongino - a 14 year veteran of the Secret Service. He asked a profound question on the radio today:

"If banning guns works, why don't we just declare a 360 degree gun ban around the President and then simply disarm the Secret Service"?

The is not the first time he has posed this question:

[ame=http://youtu.be/AdhXSj-DL1A]Ex Secret Service Agent Dan Bongino @ Guns Across America Rally in Annapolis, MD - 2nd Amendment - YouTube[/ame]

 

[JoeB131]

Because most citizens don't have millions of crazy people who hate their guts like the President does...

Dumbass.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Because most citizens don't have millions of crazy people who hate their guts like the President does...

Dumbass.

All it takes is one, Joe

 

[JoeB131]

Because most citizens don't have millions of crazy people who hate their guts like the President does...

Dumbass.

All it takes is one, Joe

True enough..

But then you get into things called probabilities.

there are a few people who dislike me, but the probablility of one of them shooting at me is pretty remote. Therefore, I really don't need armed body guards.

The president- completely different issue. And I mean, any president, not just Obama. Most would-be and actual presidential assassins tend to be just plain nuts.

Kind of why the Mona Lisa needs security measures and that old sofa I put out by the trash doesn't.

 

[EdwardBaiamonte]

Kind of why the Mona Lisa needs security measures and that old sofa I put out by the trash doesn't.

and some people merely feel better knowing they have a gun for protection even when they probably won't need it. Thankfully its their decision, thanks to the Constitution, and not a libturds who would certainly decide one day that we did not need self-protection from libturds!

 

[JoeB131]

Kind of why the Mona Lisa needs security measures and that old sofa I put out by the trash doesn't.

and some people merely feel better knowing they have a gun for protection even when they probably won't need it. Thankfully its their decision, thanks to the Constitution, and not a libturds who would certainly decide one day that we did not need self-protection from libturds!

Until the majority of us who don't want guns in our neighborhoods get sick of your shit.

Yeah.

 

[P@triot]

Because most citizens don't have millions of crazy people who hate their guts like the President does...

That's not true Joe - you do!

 

[P@triot]

Harry Reid admits the real agenda of the dumbocrats is to ban guns....

Slip of the tongue? Reid calls bill ?anti-gun legislation? | Video | TheBlaze.com

 

[legaleagle_45]

Because most citizens don't have millions of crazy people who hate their guts like the President does...

Dumbass.

All it takes is one, Joe

True enough..

But then you get into things called probabilities. .

Each person must evaluate their own position and take the steps which they deem prudent. Don't you believe in choice or personal responsibility? Or do you get to decide the appropriate level of protection which each person is entitled. That is my primary problem with "shall issue" concealed carry laws where some bureaucrat decides for you whether you "need" to have a firearm to protect yourself. What this generally entails is that the successful white guy is deemed worthy, but the poor minority is not.

 

[P@triot]

And here we are with now the - what, 3,000 story since 2013 began? - of a person lawfully defending themselves with a firearm. But you won't here the left-wing media talk about that, will you? These people would have either been maimed or killed. Instead, they are alive and well and one more maniac is permanently off the streets.

Intruder With a Baseball Bat Vs. Texas Man With a Shotgun ? Here?s What Happened | TheBlaze.com

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

All it takes is one, Joe

True enough..

But then you get into things called probabilities. .

Each person must evaluate their own position and take the steps which they deem prudent. Don't you believe in choice or personal responsibility? Or do you get to decide the appropriate level of protection which each person is entitled. That is my primary problem with "shall issue" concealed carry laws where some bureaucrat decides for you whether you "need" to have a firearm to protect yourself. What this generally entails is that the successful white guy is deemed worthy, but the poor minority is not.

You’re confusing ‘shall issue’ with ‘may issue.’

Shall issue laws require the state to authorize a citizen to carry a handgun once certain criteria are met, whether the individual has a ‘need’ to carry a firearm or not.

May issue, on the other hand, requires the individual to document a ‘need’ or ‘good cause’ to carry a firearm, which could be construed as capricious on the part of the state.

 

[P@triot]

This week, the state of Missouri’s proposed legislation that would make it illegal to enforce any federal gun control laws enacted in 2013 and beyond, passed by an overwhelming majority in the state’s House of Representatives.

Mo. House Takes Shot at Federal Gov?t by Passing This Gun Bill | TheBlaze.com

 

[legaleagle_45]

You’re confusing ‘shall issue’ with ‘may issue.’

Yes I was.. you are correct

 

[P@triot]

Most law enforcement officers agree: Gun control will hurt America

Most law enforcement officers agree: Gun control will hurt America ? Glenn Beck

 

[P@triot]

So the government (those on the left) want to ban firearms. At the same time, the government takes one hour to respond to an armed robbery.

Is there EVER a liberal policy that doesn't end in failure, misery, and decay?

Dallas Cops Take an Hour to Respond to Armed Robbery ? and Wait Until You Hear the Reason Why | TheBlaze.com

 

[JoeB131]

Again, no one was shot in that robbery, so not seeing the problem.

Most places tell you, you get robbed, you hand over the money.

 

[P@triot]

According to data from the FBI’s uniform crime reports, California had the highest number of gun murders in 2011 with 1,220 — which makes up 68% of all murders in the state that year and equates to 3.25 murders per 100,000 people.

The irony of such a grisly distinction is evident when you look at which state was named the state with the strongest gun control laws in 2011 by the Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence. You guessed it — it was California.

Sources:

FBI ? Crime in the U.S. 2011

Brady Campaign Releases Its Annual Gun-Control Scorecard | Outdoor Life

The Firearms Statistics That Gun Control Advocates Don?t Want to See | TheBlaze.com