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.
In the nation in which we live there are angry men and boys who seem to believe life is not worth living, for them or others. They plan to exit this life but not alone, and these are those who can easily buy weapons of mass destruction, weapons easy to carry into malls and schools, movie theaters and office buildings and destroy innocent men, women and children with a flick of their finger.
Power tends to corrupt; a gun gives the weak of mind and character the ultimate power - to kill, to murder. Are there legitimate reasons to own, possess and have in one's custody and control a gun? Yes, but not weapons of war, weapons designed to kill massive numbers of human beings; LaPierre's mission in life is not to protect, it is to profit and that is evil.
Well I for one can appreciate that intense and well articulated slice of hyperbole. Weapons of mass destruction?Weapons of war?
How far do you believe your Second Amendment Rights reach? Since the Second A. uses the term "Arms" and not guns, I presume you feel your right to own "arms" is unlimited as to form, shape, size and power, is that correct?
If not, and we take the wording of the Second A. literally, what legal right does the government, on any level, have to restrict any 'arm', including nuclear, biological or chemical?
NBC's are considered artillery, not arms.
Really? And the signers of the Constitution knew that? Who would have thunk.
So "arms", in your opinion meant muskets, capable of three balls per minute, not cannon. Is that correct?
framers expected the citizens to be as well armed as the government. they placed no restrictions or limitationsNBC's are considered artillery, not arms.
Really? And the signers of the Constitution knew that? Who would have thunk.
So "arms", in your opinion meant muskets, capable of three balls per minute, not cannon. Is that correct?
NBC's are considered artillery, not arms.
Really? And the signers of the Constitution knew that? Who would have thunk.
So "arms", in your opinion meant muskets, capable of three balls per minute, not cannon. Is that correct?
Arms meant the weapons in use by the military....of ANY time. And if we are to use history as a guide then artillery is OK too. After all the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston was founded in 1638 and they are still with us.
Ancient Honorable Artillery Massachusetts militia AHA Ancients patriotic service organization centennial legion military traditions
framers expected the citizens to be as well armed as the government. they placed no restrictions or limitationsReally? And the signers of the Constitution knew that? Who would have thunk.
So "arms", in your opinion meant muskets, capable of three balls per minute, not cannon. Is that correct?
Ignorant nonsense.
As the Heller Court correctly reaffirmed, as with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and subject to reasonable restrictions.
Really? And the signers of the Constitution knew that? Who would have thunk.
So "arms", in your opinion meant muskets, capable of three balls per minute, not cannon. Is that correct?
Arms meant the weapons in use by the military....of ANY time. And if we are to use history as a guide then artillery is OK too. After all the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston was founded in 1638 and they are still with us.
Ancient Honorable Artillery Massachusetts militia AHA Ancients patriotic service organization centennial legion military traditions
So we're clear, you support every civilian's right to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control any "arm" in use by our military forces. Is that correct?
How is he wrong? There's thugs and people that are out to hurt people for no reason.
Don't you want to have your self defense when someone breaks into your home?
framers expected the citizens to be as well armed as the government. they placed no restrictions or limitationsReally? And the signers of the Constitution knew that? Who would have thunk.
So "arms", in your opinion meant muskets, capable of three balls per minute, not cannon. Is that correct?
Hence you believe citizens have the right to have in their possession Nuclear Weapons (and we can presume biological and chemical weapons too).
Problem is libtarded dimwits and it seems the scotus doesn't know what is constitutional or not.Yet, the Right constantly campaigns, makes laws, and posts about abortion, making it impossible for one to get an abortion in a growing number of areas.vote for a republican woman and you will lose control of your bodies - 28 years of republican leadership since roe vs wade and women have not lost control of their bodies
blacks, vote republican and you will be held down. funny, blacks fare no better under a democrat, even a black democrat.
talk about fear to get the vote out
Hence the hypocrisy of most conservatives.
They advocate for states rights when it comes to things they oppose, such as the right to privacy or equal protection of the law; then oppose states rights when states enact gun control measures determined to be Constitutional.
A libtard or a libtard court wouldn't know what is constitutional or not, idiots.framers expected the citizens to be as well armed as the government. they placed no restrictions or limitations
Ignorant nonsense.
As the Heller Court correctly reaffirmed, as with other rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, and subject to reasonable restrictions.
the heller court are not the framers. the 2nd amendment is unlimited and subject to no restrictions. gun grabbers are losing this argument and the clock is going to be turned back. face facts, you couldn't exploit the deaths of school children to have a law passed you claimed 85% of the public supported. you shot your wad and lost. gun owners are the fastest growing demographic in the united states. the gun industry is the fastest growing industry. The NRA is the fastest growing lobby. Gun friendly politicians are about to become the fastest growing group in congress. courts will become gun friendly. the tide is against you
The NRA is the NAMBLA of the 2nd Amendment.
They are the Westboro Baptist of gun rights.
Really? And the signers of the Constitution knew that? Who would have thunk.
So "arms", in your opinion meant muskets, capable of three balls per minute, not cannon. Is that correct?
Arms meant the weapons in use by the military....of ANY time. And if we are to use history as a guide then artillery is OK too. After all the Ancient and Honorable Artillery Company of Boston was founded in 1638 and they are still with us.
Ancient Honorable Artillery Massachusetts militia AHA Ancients patriotic service organization centennial legion military traditions
So we're clear, you support every civilian's right to own, possess or have in his or her custody or control any "arm" in use by our military forces. Is that correct?
The NRA is the NAMBLA of the 2nd Amendment.
They are the Westboro Baptist of gun rights.
the reality of the situation is, everyday the arguments of those like hazelnut grow weaker and the NRA grows stronger. hazelnuts voice is heard by a few who don't really care what he has to say, while the NRA's voice is heard loud and clear in Washington.
Hazlnut Nightmarishly Naive Vision Of America
Pipeline workers find mass grave of Jews killed by Nazis
Luke Harding in Moscow
The Guardian, Tuesday 5 June 2007
A mass grave holding the remains of thousands of Jews executed by the Nazis during the second world war has been discovered in southern Ukraine by workers digging pipelines.
The workers stumbled upon the remains by chance last month in the village of Gvozdavka-1, near the Black Sea port of Odessa, Jewish leaders said yesterday."
.
framers expected the citizens to be as well armed as the government. they placed no restrictions or limitations
Hence you believe citizens have the right to have in their possession Nuclear Weapons (and we can presume biological and chemical weapons too).
I don't believe they are arms. but as far as biological weapons, and educated individual could make his own. same with chemical weapons. nuclear would be a lot harder. but we have all seen biological and chemical are available on a black market and as rogue nations develop nuclear capabilities, they will be too.
framers expected the citizens to be as well armed as the government. they placed no restrictions or limitationsReally? And the signers of the Constitution knew that? Who would have thunk.
So "arms", in your opinion meant muskets, capable of three balls per minute, not cannon. Is that correct?
Hence you believe citizens have the right to have in their possession Nuclear Weapons (and we can presume biological and chemical weapons too).
Hence you believe citizens have the right to have in their possession Nuclear Weapons (and we can presume biological and chemical weapons too).
I don't believe they are arms. but as far as biological weapons, and educated individual could make his own. same with chemical weapons. nuclear would be a lot harder. but we have all seen biological and chemical are available on a black market and as rogue nations develop nuclear capabilities, they will be too.
And even if they were arms they would likely be determined dangerous and unusual and not in common use by the courts, and their possession therefore would not be entitled to Constitutional protections, in accordance with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
