The Right To Bear Arms

[Borillar]

Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.

Yeah... If I was in a crowded bar or theater, I'd be a lot happier taking my chances against some asshole with a muzzle loading musket than some nutjob with an AR-15.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

heres the problem with republicans ....they are gullible ... they will believe just about everything they are told by their handlers
Hillary will take your guns away ... do you think she and the entire democrats would be that stupid to try and do that ??? really !!!!! do you ??? hears what they would have to do.... first get every democrat on board to pass legislation in removing the second amendment, how well do you think thats going to work you idiots republicans ??? then get the majority of the people in the country on board with them so they know they can get reelected ... mind you, this is how stupid you republicans are ... you would believe this crap that they would be this stupid to try and remove the second amendment ... I guess your stupidity is cause by your mother and your uncles being your father is the cause ...here we have 294 post saying all kinds of bull shit reason that you believe we Dems will take the second amendment away ... because thats what it is ... right wing bull shit ... they can't come up with any kind of plan to run on, they rely on you ignorance they intern go after the flag burners, people on welfare, guns, and gays and you fools lap it up ... I can believe republicans are this stupid .... that they feel we democrats would be so stupid to try and repeal the 2 amendment ... a amend meant that we believe that every person should have a gun ... we don't believe that gun should be a AR 15 .. or any automatic weapons ... by us democrats saying this you have been duped into beliebing we will repeal the second amendment, how moronic is that ...

All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns. When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written in the Constitution?

And what do you believe five liberal judges can do to impact the Second A.? The have no authority to repeal it, so what is your worst case scenario?

They can water down and undermine it's interpretation to the point of making its authoritative nature weak. Liberals don't follow constitutional rules, else we would see a 14th amendment specifically include and address sexual orientation with gay rights or transgenders. The 14 Amendment didn't work historically with the women's movement, and I don't see a process to amend the constitution being utilized since that period of our nation's history to address the issue of sexual orientation. That's all the proof you need to show that liberal judges don't abide by the same Constitutional rules that our nation had to historically once follow during that period of seeking women's equality.

 

[westwall]

The great myth of the 'seckund uhmendmunt' klingons that the population having single shot rifles is enough to protect us from our own military that has millions of fully automatic rifles, thousands of fully auto .60 caliber machine guns, 8,700 M1A1 tanks, 6,400 attack helicopters, 13,000 aircraft, 10 aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, B-52 bombers, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons.

If we do ever have to fight our own military the very first thing they will do is secure all of their assets, you know because they are their assets and they know right where all of them are, then mobilize all that firepower against us and the few divisions that may switch over and fight with us.

You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago.

It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.

That's why we don't have "single shot" AR-15's. We have self loading AR-15's. Evens up the odds quite a bit. However, you might want to ask them Russki's abut how they were able to demolish them backasswards Afghani's and their Jezails.....

Oh...wait...

 

[IsaacNewton]

The great myth of the 'seckund uhmendmunt' klingons that the population having single shot rifles is enough to protect us from our own military that has millions of fully automatic rifles, thousands of fully auto .60 caliber machine guns, 8,700 M1A1 tanks, 6,400 attack helicopters, 13,000 aircraft, 10 aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, B-52 bombers, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons.

If we do ever have to fight our own military the very first thing they will do is secure all of their assets, you know because they are their assets and they know right where all of them are, then mobilize all that firepower against us and the few divisions that may switch over and fight with us.

You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago.

It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.

That's why we don't have "single shot" AR-15's. We have self loading AR-15's. Evens up the odds quite a bit. However, you might want to ask them Russki's abut how they were able to demolish them backasswards Afghani's and their Jezails.....

Oh...wait...

You demonstrate your fantasy world, thank you.

 

[Afterword]

All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns. When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written in the Constitution?

How would they dispossess the populous of firearms once the Supreme Court sanctioned the act? I am quite certain that a large number of gun owners would not hand over there weapons willingly, and it would require extreme measures to force them into submission. Homes would have to be searched, the border security would have to be strengthened to an unprecedented level and a special task force would be needed to implement the latter.

The devil would be in the details.

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns. When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written in the Constitution?

How would they dispossess the populous of firearms once the Supreme Court sanctioned the act? I am quite certain that a large number of gun owners would not hand over there weapons willing, and it would require extreme measures to force them into submission. Homes would have to be searched, the border security would have to be strengthened to an unprecedented level and a special task force would be needed to implement the latter.

The devil would be in the details.

Not that difficult really. Anyone approached by the police or government agent in a routine enforcement stop as a "suspected individual" (or person of interest) found in possession of a firearm would have that firearm seized, as any cop that arrests a criminal suspected of a violent crime would do. Those that sell firearms would be so heavily regulated by the government that their ability to have a license to sell a firearm would be difficult to obtain. Look at the coal industry and how regulations have hindered their position to produce coal as a fossil fuel source. Democrats are well known for more and more increased regulations more than republicans, all one has to do is look at those President Obama has passed and the effects they achieved towards meeting their liberal ideological position. You don't think government has the authority? Just look at the government health care system and the Supreme Court Justices that have kept it in place. You really only have to see what Democrats have historically been known for over the past three decades to see the capability and the possibility that exists.

 

[Afterword]

All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns. When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written in the Constitution?

How would they dispossess the populous of firearms once the Supreme Court sanctioned the act? I am quite certain that a large number of gun owners would not hand over there weapons willing, and it would require extreme measures to force them into submission. Homes would have to be searched, the border security would have to be strengthened to an unprecedented level and a special task force would be needed to implement the latter.

The devil would be in the details.

Not that difficult really. Anyone approached by the police or government agent in a routine enforcement stop as a "suspected individual" (or person of interest) found in possession of a firearm would have that firearm seized, as any cop that arrests a criminal suspected of a violent crime would do. Those that sell firearms would be so heavily regulated by the government that their ability to have a license to sell a firearm would be difficult to obtain. Look at the coal industry and how regulations have hindered their position to produce coal as a fossil fuel source. Democrats are well known for more and more increased regulations more than republicans, all one has to do is look at those President Obama has passed and the effects they achieved towards meeting their liberal ideological position. You don't think government has the authority? Just look at the government health care system and the Supreme Court Justices that have kept it in place.

My mistake, I thought you were talking about making firearms illegal to own?

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns. When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written in the Constitution?

How would they dispossess the populous of firearms once the Supreme Court sanctioned the act? I am quite certain that a large number of gun owners would not hand over there weapons willing, and it would require extreme measures to force them into submission. Homes would have to be searched, the border security would have to be strengthened to an unprecedented level and a special task force would be needed to implement the latter.

The devil would be in the details.

Not that difficult really. Anyone approached by the police or government agent in a routine enforcement stop as a "suspected individual" (or person of interest) found in possession of a firearm would have that firearm seized, as any cop that arrests a criminal suspected of a violent crime would do. Those that sell firearms would be so heavily regulated by the government that their ability to have a license to sell a firearm would be difficult to obtain. Look at the coal industry and how regulations have hindered their position to produce coal as a fossil fuel source. Democrats are well known for more and more increased regulations more than republicans, all one has to do is look at those President Obama has passed and the effects they achieved towards meeting their liberal ideological position. You don't think government has the authority? Just look at the government health care system and the Supreme Court Justices that have kept it in place.

My mistake, I thought you were talking about making firearms illegal to own?

Own and sell, as I have just shown in my response how they (police and government agents) can seize firearms that come to their knowledge. It comes down to the constitutional interpretation of the second amendment and how it applies, or its historical significance when it comes to the language it was written at the time.

 

[Afterword]

All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns. When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written in the Constitution?

How would they dispossess the populous of firearms once the Supreme Court sanctioned the act? I am quite certain that a large number of gun owners would not hand over there weapons willing, and it would require extreme measures to force them into submission. Homes would have to be searched, the border security would have to be strengthened to an unprecedented level and a special task force would be needed to implement the latter.

The devil would be in the details.

Not that difficult really. Anyone approached by the police or government agent in a routine enforcement stop as a "suspected individual" (or person of interest) found in possession of a firearm would have that firearm seized, as any cop that arrests a criminal suspected of a violent crime would do. Those that sell firearms would be so heavily regulated by the government that their ability to have a license to sell a firearm would be difficult to obtain. Look at the coal industry and how regulations have hindered their position to produce coal as a fossil fuel source. Democrats are well known for more and more increased regulations more than republicans, all one has to do is look at those President Obama has passed and the effects they achieved towards meeting their liberal ideological position. You don't think government has the authority? Just look at the government health care system and the Supreme Court Justices that have kept it in place.

My mistake, I thought you were talking about making firearms illegal to own?

Own and sell, as I have just shown in my response how they (police and government agents) can seize firearms that come to their knowledge.

That would not be an effective or serious means of accomplishing the desired end. A large number of people would still own firearms a hundred years later.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.

Yeah... If I was in a crowded bar or theater, I'd be a lot happier taking my chances against some asshole with a muzzle loading musket than some nutjob with an AR-15.

Yeah because it happens soooo often

 

[ShaklesOfBigGov]

All Hillary Clinton has to do is appoint and place enough liberal judges who agrees with her view towards guns. When has the United States Supreme Court, particularly judges who share a liberal ideological view of that document, actually abided by the rules written in the Constitution?

How would they dispossess the populous of firearms once the Supreme Court sanctioned the act? I am quite certain that a large number of gun owners would not hand over there weapons willing, and it would require extreme measures to force them into submission. Homes would have to be searched, the border security would have to be strengthened to an unprecedented level and a special task force would be needed to implement the latter.

The devil would be in the details.

Not that difficult really. Anyone approached by the police or government agent in a routine enforcement stop as a "suspected individual" (or person of interest) found in possession of a firearm would have that firearm seized, as any cop that arrests a criminal suspected of a violent crime would do. Those that sell firearms would be so heavily regulated by the government that their ability to have a license to sell a firearm would be difficult to obtain. Look at the coal industry and how regulations have hindered their position to produce coal as a fossil fuel source. Democrats are well known for more and more increased regulations more than republicans, all one has to do is look at those President Obama has passed and the effects they achieved towards meeting their liberal ideological position. You don't think government has the authority? Just look at the government health care system and the Supreme Court Justices that have kept it in place.

My mistake, I thought you were talking about making firearms illegal to own?

Own and sell, as I have just shown in my response how they (police and government agents) can seize firearms that come to their knowledge.

That would not be an effective or serious means of accomplishing the desired end. A large number of people would still own firearms a hundred years later.

As we have so many successful coal industries that are able to remain in business from more and more government regulations? Think again. Interpretation, government provided regulation, Constitutional Judicial support from life term judges without anyone to answer to, and government enforcement is all you need.

 

[westwall]

The great myth of the 'seckund uhmendmunt' klingons that the population having single shot rifles is enough to protect us from our own military that has millions of fully automatic rifles, thousands of fully auto .60 caliber machine guns, 8,700 M1A1 tanks, 6,400 attack helicopters, 13,000 aircraft, 10 aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, B-52 bombers, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons.

If we do ever have to fight our own military the very first thing they will do is secure all of their assets, you know because they are their assets and they know right where all of them are, then mobilize all that firepower against us and the few divisions that may switch over and fight with us.

You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago.

It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.

That's why we don't have "single shot" AR-15's. We have self loading AR-15's. Evens up the odds quite a bit. However, you might want to ask them Russki's abut how they were able to demolish them backasswards Afghani's and their Jezails.....

Oh...wait...

You demonstrate your fantasy world, thank you.

Historically, and factually correct. It is you and your simpleton views that are living in fantasy land.

 

[Borillar]

Right or wrong, obsolete or relevant, the Second Amendment essentially means what five justices on the Supreme Court say it means.

Yeah... If I was in a crowded bar or theater, I'd be a lot happier taking my chances against some asshole with a muzzle loading musket than some nutjob with an AR-15.

Yeah because it happens soooo often

Happens more often than a zombie apocalypse, anti-tyrannical government revolutions, and invaders from space - the typical right wing reasons to have them.

 

[IsaacNewton]

The great myth of the 'seckund uhmendmunt' klingons that the population having single shot rifles is enough to protect us from our own military that has millions of fully automatic rifles, thousands of fully auto .60 caliber machine guns, 8,700 M1A1 tanks, 6,400 attack helicopters, 13,000 aircraft, 10 aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, B-52 bombers, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons.

If we do ever have to fight our own military the very first thing they will do is secure all of their assets, you know because they are their assets and they know right where all of them are, then mobilize all that firepower against us and the few divisions that may switch over and fight with us.

You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago.

It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.

That's why we don't have "single shot" AR-15's. We have self loading AR-15's. Evens up the odds quite a bit. However, you might want to ask them Russki's abut how they were able to demolish them backasswards Afghani's and their Jezails.....

Oh...wait...

You demonstrate your fantasy world, thank you.

Historically, and factually correct. It is you and your simpleton views that are living in fantasy land.

Well stock up on your flintlocks and musket balls. And don't forget your pointy aluminum hat.

 

[Flash]

[


Since you believe HRC is a crook, maybe you can offer what she did to be arraigned, tried and convicted of doing, which made her a crook. You might also explain who you conclude Trump is a big government liberal - his Stump speech leaves little doubt that he is a neo fascist as are his supporters.

I don't believe it I know it. We all know it, even you idiots that are going to voted for the filthy ass bitch. The FBI Director even said she was an incompetent asshole and said she lied to Congress when pressed on the matter.

You must be getting all your news from MSNBC so you continue to be low information. That is typical for a Moon Bat, isn't it?

You may be the only Gruberidiot left in this country that actually believes Crooked Hillary is honest and not corrupt.

You are quite a peach, aren't you? You think Crooked Hillary is honest ,you voted for that jackass Obama and you don't believe we should have the right to keep and bear arms in this country. You should run for the office of President of the Libtard Moon Bat Club. You would be a shoe in.

 

[Wry Catcher]

Once again you biases color your judgment. Most guns are sold legally, yet criminals seem to get them too easily as do mass murderers who are (presumably) insane.

Answer this question: How do criminals and the insane get guns?

Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.

You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals

So, if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?

Why don't you ask your hero's in France who had no problem obtaining AK-47's which they used to gun down 150 people. Face it silly boy, gun laws affect only the law abiding. Evil people ignore your bullshit laws, and have NO problem getting what they want.

Temper temper, we all want to set a good example and play well with others.

I don't "play" with people who want to deprive me of fundamental Rights. I despise "people" like you. "People", just like you have made it possible for governments to murder over 150 million civilians over the last 125 years. You're scum.

Thanks so much for sharing. BTW, I don't default to fighting words with punks like you. You're entitled to your opinion, but always keep in mind that opinions built on a foundation of hate and fear and emotion are like assholes, existing for the single reason to spread shit.

 

[Wry Catcher]

[


Since you believe HRC is a crook, maybe you can offer what she did to be arraigned, tried and convicted of doing, which made her a crook. You might also explain who you conclude Trump is a big government liberal - his Stump speech leaves little doubt that he is a neo fascist as are his supporters.

I don't believe it I know it. We all know it, even you idiots that are going to voted for the filthy ass bitch. The FBI Director even said she was an incompetent asshole and said she lied to Congress when pressed on the matter.

You must be getting all your news from MSNBC so you continue to be low information. That is typical for a Moon Bat, isn't it?

You may be the only Gruberidiot left in this country that actually believes Crooked Hillary is honest and not corrupt.

You are quite a peach, aren't you? You think Crooked Hillary is honest ,you voted for that jackass Obama and you don't believe we should have the right to keep and bear arms in this country. You should run for the office of President of the Libtard Moon Bat Club. You would be a shoe in.

You unbridled anger is emotional, not rational. It seems to me someone who cannot control their emotions is too immature and too childish to engage in an adult conversation. In all fairness, I suggest you a) get a competent therapist; b) return to high school and learn to write an expository essay, as well a take a course in debate, and c) grow up.

 

[EatMorChikin]

The great myth of the 'seckund uhmendmunt' klingons that the population having single shot rifles is enough to protect us from our own military that has millions of fully automatic rifles, thousands of fully auto .60 caliber machine guns, 8,700 M1A1 tanks, 6,400 attack helicopters, 13,000 aircraft, 10 aircraft carriers, cruise missiles, B-52 bombers, ballistic missiles, and nuclear weapons.

If we do ever have to fight our own military the very first thing they will do is secure all of their assets, you know because they are their assets and they know right where all of them are, then mobilize all that firepower against us and the few divisions that may switch over and fight with us.

You people live in a fantasy that died completely just before WW1, over 100 years ago.

It is a very unpleasant reality but it is reality. The American people with their single shot AR15's couldn't beat the Mexican army.

If I had to fight the mexican army, my rifles would be converted. And if shit happened in this country, military would take our side.

 

[kaz]

Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.

You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals

So, if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?

Why don't you ask your hero's in France who had no problem obtaining AK-47's which they used to gun down 150 people. Face it silly boy, gun laws affect only the law abiding. Evil people ignore your bullshit laws, and have NO problem getting what they want.

Temper temper, we all want to set a good example and play well with others.

I don't "play" with people who want to deprive me of fundamental Rights. I despise "people" like you. "People", just like you have made it possible for governments to murder over 150 million civilians over the last 125 years. You're scum.

Thanks so much for sharing. BTW, I don't default to fighting words with punks like you. You're entitled to your opinion, but always keep in mind that opinions built on a foundation of hate and fear and emotion are like assholes, existing for the single reason to spread shit.

Gawd, you insult people all the time and you whine to high heaven when you get insulted. And yet, you can't answer this simple question, you keep running away and hiding. Here it is ... again ... coward ...

Drug smugglers smuggle all the drugs they want to and sell them to high school kids.

What stops them from bringing guns with the drugs and selling them to criminals?

Stop being a complete and utter sniveling coward and avoiding the question and ... answer it ...

 

[owebo]

Yes, most guns are sold legally, yet most crimes are committed with guns that are obtained illegally.

You call me "biased" yet exactly as I said, you're targeting legal gun owners, not criminals

So, if most crimes committed with a gun are obtained illegally, what method(s) does the perp use to obtain the gun?

Why don't you ask your hero's in France who had no problem obtaining AK-47's which they used to gun down 150 people. Face it silly boy, gun laws affect only the law abiding. Evil people ignore your bullshit laws, and have NO problem getting what they want.

Temper temper, we all want to set a good example and play well with others.

I don't "play" with people who want to deprive me of fundamental Rights. I despise "people" like you. "People", just like you have made it possible for governments to murder over 150 million civilians over the last 125 years. You're scum.

Thanks so much for sharing. BTW, I don't default to fighting words with punks like you. You're entitled to your opinion, but always keep in mind that opinions built on a foundation of hate and fear and emotion are like assholes, existing for the single reason to spread shit.

One thing you can rest assured knowing, you will be stacked at the bottom of the piles....