The 2nd Amendment for dumbocrats

[Vandalshandle]

Too late!!!!

 

[OODA_Loop]

Okay.... Please let me know exactly what I, Joe B of Chicago, did PERSONALLY to cause the recession of 2008.

We'll wait.

"You" support elected officials, espouse an ideology and call for a government system that reinforces the false notion that "you" are a perpetual victim of those more successful and that a government based on "your" values is the intervening hand to right the wrongs of "your" victimization.

 

[JoeB131]

Okay.... Please let me know exactly what I, Joe B of Chicago, did PERSONALLY to cause the recession of 2008.

We'll wait.

"You" support elected officials, espouse an ideology and call for a government system that reinforces the false notion that "you" are a perpetual victim of those more successful and that a government based on "your" values is the intervening hand to right the wrongs of "your" victimization.

First, prior to 2008, before my Romney loving boss fired me for having medical issues, I voted for mostly republicans, not these mythical democrats you talk about.

Second, even if this "victimization" thing happened like you think it did, how did that cause the recession?

The Recession happened because the right got EVERYTHING it wanted. They got free trade, they got de-regulation of banks and industry, they got weak enforcement by the SEC and such...

You just aren't very bright. Maybe you need to listen to more Hate Radio and let them do your thinking for you.

 

[P@triot]

Okay.... Please let me know exactly what I, Joe B of Chicago, did PERSONALLY to cause the recession of 2008.

We'll wait.

"You" support elected officials, espouse an ideology and call for a government system that reinforces the false notion that "you" are a perpetual victim of those more successful and that a government based on "your" values is the intervening hand to right the wrongs of "your" victimization.

 

[P@triot]

This week's outrage comes to us courtesy of the anti-gun Reverend Jesse Jackson. Rev. Jackson is not in the news as much now as he once was. When you do hear from him, though, his comments are still laced with his usual dose of hyperbole.

That predictable pattern continues with Rev. Jackson's recent comments on semi-automatic firearms.

According to an article appearing on TheBlaze.com last month, Rev. Jackson believes that semi-automatic firearms must be banned because they could "shoot down planes" and therefore constitute a risk to national security.

The Blaze ran a follow-up story debunking the claim, but that didn't seem to deter Rev. Jackson, as this week he boldly declared that, in addition to shooting down planes, semi-automatic firearms could also be used to "blow up railroads."

"You know that these weapons can shoot down airplanes, they can blow up railroads. This is really a whole national security issue," Rev. Jackson said in a recent interview on Fox News. Blow up railroads? What in the world is he basing that claim on?

If Rev. Jackson is interested in the facts and wants to return this debate back to earth, he should know that semi-automatic firearms were introduced in the late 1800s, and have been popular for self-defense, hunting and target shooting ever since. Forty percent of all uses of firearms for self-defense are performed with semi-automatic handguns, and all firearms used in the annual National Rifle and Pistol Trophy Matches are semi-automatic.

Though he seems to know very little about semi-automatic firearms, we assume that we will continue to hear Rev. Jackson make outrageous claims about this issue in the future. No doubt Jackson won't be able to help himself, as he craves the spotlight to continue to push his agenda, using bizarre and truly outrageous claims.

The anti-gunners--including Rev. Jackson--will stop at nothing to get what they want: a ban on your lawfully owned firearms. They will literally say anything they think will help them achieve their goal.

NRA-ILA | Outrage of the Week: Jesse Jackson Claims Semi-Autos can "Blow Up Railroads"

 

[P@triot]

Okay.... Please let me know exactly what I, Joe B of Chicago, did PERSONALLY to cause the recession of 2008.

We'll wait.

"You" support elected officials, espouse an ideology and call for a government system that reinforces the false notion that "you" are a perpetual victim of those more successful and that a government based on "your" values is the intervening hand to right the wrongs of "your" victimization.

First, prior to 2008, before my Romney loving boss fired me for having medical issues, I voted for mostly republicans, not these mythical democrats you talk about.

Second, even if this "victimization" thing happened like you think it did, how did that cause the recession?

The Recession happened because the right got EVERYTHING it wanted. They got free trade, they got de-regulation of banks and industry, they got weak enforcement by the SEC and such...

You just aren't very bright. Maybe you need to listen to more Hate Radio and let them do your thinking for you.

JoeB. - the perpetual victim.

His ideology: when life doesn't go your way, demand communism (a system with a world wide failure rate of 100%)

His philosophy: fuck everybody - the world owes me.

His religion: God doesn't exist because the world has yet to recognize that it owes me

His attitude: live bitter, die bitter

His paradox: Despite loathing the American system and admittedly loving communism, refuses to leave the U.S. for Cuba to experience his communist utopia (where he could enjoy beautiful weather, amazing scenery, and his American money would place him among the wealthy elite)

 

[JoeB131]

[... communism ...communism, ... communist ...)

Pretty much how all your posts go. How many times can you work "communism" into a discussion were no one suggested communism or endorsed it.

Because, clearly, if you don't support reckless greed, you must support communism..

Get back to me when you grow up, Poodle.

 

[tjvh]

A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to security of our nation. (Oh and the pop guns they allow you to have will not defeat the weapons our military has)

The proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

The weakest argument in the dumbocrat arsenal (and yet you're forced to come back with it again and again because you've got nothing else to combat a Constitutional right other than to attempt to pervert the words of said Constitutional right).

First of all, the reason they cited is not the least bit relevant. The fact is, "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". Game. Set. Match. stupid...

Second - the militia argument

We now come back to those words so loved by the gun grabbers, “well regulated militia.” Knocking down this silly little argument is vitally important because the gun grabbers’ notion that says the Second Amendment reads, in essence, “militias are acceptable” is simply and undeniably the only arrow in their quiver. Take that from them, and they are finished.

Liberals do not maintain that the Second Amendment says “We can take your guns.” They believe (or pretend to believe) that the Second Amendment reads, “Militias are acceptable.” Being wholly ignorant of the doctrine of enumerated powers, liberals think this is enough to deny us our gun rights; for if the federal government, unrestrained by an enumeration, was empowered to legislate on all matters not put off limits by the Bill of Rights, and if the Second Amendment actually did read “militias are acceptable,” then the federal government would indeed have the authority to regulate our ownership of firearms.

A constitutional amendment that reads “militias are acceptable,” no more gives the federal government the authority to legislate against guns than it does the authority to tell me what color I may dye my hair, or what size carburetor I may put under my hood. If I had a right to buy guns before the “militias are acceptable” amendment was enacted, then I have a right to buy guns afterward.

The Roots of the Second Amendment The Future of Freedom Foundation

Amend the Constitution. Because a well regulated militia is no longer necessary to security of our nation, and the proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

Power (guns) in the hands of the people IS exactly what we need when we have an Administration who places it's own twisted ideology before Country.

 

[P@triot]

[... communism ...communism, ... communist ...)

Pretty much how all your posts go. How many times can you work "communism" into a discussion were no one suggested communism or endorsed it.

Because, clearly, if you don't support reckless greed, you must support communism..

Get back to me when you grow up, Poodle.

Post #127: JoeB. - "I just see no reason to support a system [capitalism] that is both evil and inefficien. You can scream about Communism until you are blue in the face, but their system works and ours doesn't."

So first you loudly & proudly support communism (while referring to capitalism as "evil") and then you turn around and claim you don't support it and that I'm "immature"...

 

[P@triot]

President Barack Obama, Vice President Joe Biden, New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg (I), and scores of others have repeated the mantra that approximately 40 percent of all gun purchases are conducted through private sales at gun shows and are not subject to a criminal background check. This has become known as the “gun show loophole.”

As The Washington Post has pointed out, this 40 percent figure comes from a 1997 report by the National Institute of Justice, a research agency within the Department of Justice, and was based on a telephone survey sample of just 251 people who acquired firearms in 1993 and 1994. This was years before the NICS system went into effect. Of the 251 participants, 35.7% said that they didn’t or “probably” didn’t obtain their gun from a licensed firearms dealer. Because the margin of error was +/– 6 percentage points, it was rounded up to 40%, although it could just as easily and legitimately have been rounded down below 30%.

In addition, if you subtract people who said they got their gun as a gift, inheritance, or prize, the number dropped from 35.7% to 26.4%. And, in terms of how many people actually buy firearms at gun shows, the data from this same survey indicated that in 1994, only 3.9% of firearms purchases were made at gun shows.

Background Checks: The Myth of the Gun Show Loophole

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

As was stated by another poster, the Constitution was written to strengthen the federal government, since the Articles of Confederation was a dismal failure. The Bill of Rights was written to curb such federal powers, because some felt that the Constitution gave the government too much power. However, the 2nd amendment has been taken completely out of context. In the 1700's and before, militia service was mandatory for young men. There was no standing army. The militia was called up to fight the Indians, the French, and the British, and then sent home after each crisis. Each militia man knew that it was his responsibility to provide his own weapon at his own expense. None of the Founding fathers even considered the idea of a standing army that might take over the country. All the hell they were saying was, that the federal government was not going to do away with militias, and furthermore, was not going to start providing rifles to the militia. If the Founders were all that concerned about a tyrannical federal government, they would have specifically turned over ownership of cannon, warships, and forts to the states. George Washington's first crisis as president was to raise a militia to put down the Whiskey rebellion, which he did without hesitation

This is ignorance on a level that we've never seen....

You cannot have states with independent military - hence the reason the states delegated it as 1 of the 18 enumerated powers to the federal government.

You truly are an absolute moron if you believe the U.S. Constitution was designed to give power to the federal government. It was designed to outline it's 18 enumerated powers and ensure that's all the power the federal government had (read the Federalist Papers stupid).

Furthermore, you truly are an absolute moron if you believe the 2nd Amendment was only about militia's. The right to bear arms shall not be infringed. It could not be more clear.

Rott,

You really need to think, before posting. Before the Constitusion, there was ONLY state militias. The first time that there was a federal military force in this country was the revolutionary war, for crying out loud, AND THAT WAS DONE WITHOUT ANY AUTHORITY OTHER THAN A BUNCH OF REPRESENTATIVES FROM THE STATES GETTING TOGETHER AND AGREEING TO LET GEORGE WASHINGTON RUN THINGS for the duration of the revolution. The Articles of Conderation gave the federal government no power whatsoever to raise an army. That is why it was called the ARTICLES OF CONFEDERATION! Jesus, Rott, how could the United States of America have an military if there was no such thing as the United States of America?

I'm pretty sure that the history that you learned is of another country.

You've got to be kidding.

 

[JoeB131]

[... communism ...communism, ... communist ...)

Pretty much how all your posts go. How many times can you work "communism" into a discussion were no one suggested communism or endorsed it.

Because, clearly, if you don't support reckless greed, you must support communism..

Get back to me when you grow up, Poodle.

Post #127: JoeB. - "I just see no reason to support a system [capitalism] that is both evil and inefficien. You can scream about Communism until you are blue in the face, but their system works and ours doesn't."

So first you loudly & proudly support communism (while referring to capitalism as "evil") and then you turn around and claim you don't support it and that I'm "immature"...

Another sign when Poodle is losing an argument- he does the big fonts.

Okay, guy, the point was- in that post, I was MOCKING you for calling Western European Democacies - our allies during the cold war- "Communist" because they came to the conclusion that the government can run health care more humanely than greedy insurance companies. I thought you had the reading comrphension level above that of a fifth grader to realize that.

I guess I assume to much. If your reasoning skills are this poor, this is going to be a very limited conversation.

 

[JoeB131]

Background Checks: The Myth of the Gun Show Loophole

Then you won't have a problem closing it then, since it's no big deal, right?

 

[editec]

Well, simply put, the Framers wrote a constitution designed to protect individual liberties (including the right to keep and bear arms) and curtail the power of the federal government two years before the Bill of Rights was even drafted and four years before it went into effect. James Wilson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and others all explained at length why a bill of rights was unnecessary, and how the Constitution protected our rights even in the absence of such a bill:

For why declare that things shall not be done [as in a bill of rights] 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? (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 84, emphasis added.)

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. Additionally, again from Hamilton in Federalist No. 84,

There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamation we have heard, that the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS [capital letters in original].

The Roots of the Second Amendment The Future of Freedom Foundation

Of course one must overlook every SCOTUS ruling concerning guns since 1789 to arrive at this POV, but let's all pretend that we're Constitutional scholars, shall we?

Descriptions of the supreme court gun cases

 

[P@triot]

In a 14-minute instructional and debunk clip, Campbell narrates why a ban on high-capacity magazine sizes is ineffective, showcasing — through examples — the idea’s purported deficiencies.

“I think it’s a great fallacy to believe that it would,” he said candidly. “You’ve got a standard capacity versus a 10 round. From a citizen standpoint…all we’re doing is making it more difficult for [people] to defend themselves against bad guys.”

He said that those who break the law aren’t concerned with abiding by regulations, so creating magazine capacity restrictions simply doesn’t make sense. The law abiding will follow, but criminals, naturally, won’t.

“By limiting the access to standard magazines…I think you are restricting a good American’s opportunity to protect himself and his family,” the sheriff continued

The clip concludes by noting that proposed magazine size changes don’t truly pass “the common sense test.”

Yes, but when has an ignorant dumbocrat policy ever passed the "common sense test"? The next time will be the first time.

It just makes sense that when it comes to firearms, we should listen to firearms experts and law enforcement instead of liberal bureaucrats who have never even held a firearm in their life.

Sheriff Debunks Gun Magazine ?Fallacies? in This Viral Vid (Plus: His Response to Biden?s Shotgun Advice) | TheBlaze.com

 

[P@triot]

Well, simply put, the Framers wrote a constitution designed to protect individual liberties (including the right to keep and bear arms) and curtail the power of the federal government two years before the Bill of Rights was even drafted and four years before it went into effect. James Wilson, James Madison, Alexander Hamilton and others all explained at length why a bill of rights was unnecessary, and how the Constitution protected our rights even in the absence of such a bill:

For why declare that things shall not be done [as in a bill of rights] 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? (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist No. 84, emphasis added.)

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. Additionally, again from Hamilton in Federalist No. 84,

There remains but one other view of this matter to conclude the point. The truth is, after all the declamation we have heard, that the constitution is itself in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS [capital letters in original].

The Roots of the Second Amendment The Future of Freedom Foundation

Of course one must overlook every SCOTUS ruling concerning guns since 1789 to arrive at this POV, but let's all pretend that we're Constitutional scholars, shall we?

Descriptions of the supreme court gun cases

The Supreme Court did not write the U.S. Constitution, now did they? But one must overlook that to arrive at your radical POV. So let's all pretend that the Constitution doesn't matter and that the Supreme Court is the ultimate law of the land, shall we?

 

[P@triot]

Background Checks: The Myth of the Gun Show Loophole

Then you won't have a problem closing it then, since it's no big deal, right?

Actually, no - I wouldn't have a problem closing it. I want guns kept out of the hands of criminals.

 

[legaleagle_45]

the OP ignores that all the scotus members dont agree with him

All nine justices in DC v Heller agreed that the 2nd protected an individual right.

 

[legaleagle_45]

Of course one must overlook every SCOTUS ruling concerning guns since 1789 to arrive at this POV, but let's all pretend that we're Constitutional scholars, shall we?

Descriptions of the supreme court gun cases

Sorry, I do not give much credence to a website that describes US v Miller as :

Personally I see that as weaselly crap

 

[JoeB131]

Background Checks: The Myth of the Gun Show Loophole

Then you won't have a problem closing it then, since it's no big deal, right?

Actually, no - I wouldn't have a problem closing it. I want guns kept out of the hands of criminals.

Criminals get their guns at Gun Shows to avoid the background checks.

So you are for closing the GUn Show Loophole, then?