Why Do You Need A Gun?

[2aguy]

Because I WANT one. No other reason or explaining needed.

So anyone who wants one should be able to get one?

Is that what he said.......?

The same thing a mentally disturbed person would say right before they used that gun to kill a few people. That is not saying that DarkFury is that mental person, although one never does know for certain. The issue is that if DarkFury can purchase a gun without a background check, then so can the mentally disturbed person whom we do not want having a gun.

And do background checks stop mentally ill people, criminals or mass shooters from getting guns?

 

[Unkotare]

Please. Just be honest. Stop with the "it's my right" bullshit.

You say the same about the rest of the Bill of Rights, douche?

...this outcry from nutbags isn't about rights. It's about fear. .

If you insist on putting it that way, douche, isn't that the very reason a Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution?

Nope. .... It wasn't fear......

That's exactly what it was; a fear of the excesses of government power with which the Founders were all too familiar. The ill-considered Articles of Confederation were adopted first precisely because the men forming a new nation wanted to protect the rights of the individual from the very real threat of centralized government power. The Constitution as written would not have made it out of Philly if the Bill of Rights wasn't added to it - because the delegates knew there was something very real to fear in the unbridled power of a federal government. Turns out we needed both a reasonably strong federal government AND iron-clad restraints on its use of power.

And that's the fact, Jack.



The Bill of Rights is there expressly and specifically to protect the rights of the individual from just the kind of thinking (and consequent action) in which the democrat party has always engaged.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Please. Just be honest. Stop with the "it's my right" bullshit.

You say the same about the rest of the Bill of Rights, douche?

...this outcry from nutbags isn't about rights. It's about fear. .

If you insist on putting it that way, douche, isn't that the very reason a Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution?

Nope. .... It wasn't fear......

That's exactly what it was; a fear of the excesses of government power with which the Founders were all too familiar. The ill-considered Articles of Confederation were adopted first precisely because the men forming a new nation wanted to protect the rights of the individual from the very real threat of centralized government power. The Constitution as written would not have made it out of Philly if the Bill of Rights wasn't added to it - because the delegates knew there was something very real to fear in the unbridled power of a federal government. Turns out we needed both a reasonably strong federal government AND iron-clad restraints on its use of power.

And that's the fact, Jack.



The Bill of Rights is there expressly and specifically to protect the rights of the individual from just the kind of thinking (and consequent action) in which the democrat party has always engaged.

Damn. You agree with me.....but don't know it.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self defense. It is about national security. That's the entire point. You agree. Why are you acting like a little bitch?

 

[2aguy]

Because I WANT one. No other reason or explaining needed.

So anyone who wants one should be able to get one?

Is that what he said.......?

The same thing a mentally disturbed person would say right before they used that gun to kill a few people. That is not saying that DarkFury is that mental person, although one never does know for certain. The issue is that if DarkFury can purchase a gun without a background check, then so can the mentally disturbed person whom we do not want having a gun.

and the Sandy Hook shooter....did he get a background check? Or the 19 year old in Britain who got his glock 19 on the Dark Web...and 94 bullets.......

Since you can't own a Glock 19 in Britain....did he get a background check?

 

[Unkotare]

You say the same about the rest of the Bill of Rights, douche?

...this outcry from nutbags isn't about rights. It's about fear. .

If you insist on putting it that way, douche, isn't that the very reason a Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution?

Nope. .... It wasn't fear......

That's exactly what it was; a fear of the excesses of government power with which the Founders were all too familiar. The ill-considered Articles of Confederation were adopted first precisely because the men forming a new nation wanted to protect the rights of the individual from the very real threat of centralized government power. The Constitution as written would not have made it out of Philly if the Bill of Rights wasn't added to it - because the delegates knew there was something very real to fear in the unbridled power of a federal government. Turns out we needed both a reasonably strong federal government AND iron-clad restraints on its use of power.

And that's the fact, Jack.



The Bill of Rights is there expressly and specifically to protect the rights of the individual from just the kind of thinking (and consequent action) in which the democrat party has always engaged.

Damn. You agree with me.....but don't know it.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self defense. It is about national security. ....

It's about both, because they are inextricably linked, ya dumbass.

 

[2aguy]

Please. Just be honest. Stop with the "it's my right" bullshit.

You say the same about the rest of the Bill of Rights, douche?

...this outcry from nutbags isn't about rights. It's about fear. .

If you insist on putting it that way, douche, isn't that the very reason a Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution?

Nope. Dickbreath. It wasn't fear...it was enlightenment. Liberals like me understand this and don't fear the future.....because we've got those rights. The minute a dumb shit nutbag feels unhappy about something he starts screaming about how he's losing his rights. Well....those rights aren't based on a flimsy foundation and won't be stripped at anyone's whim. Frightened losers think someone is hiding under the bed waiting to grab their rights.

You aren't stupid. You are disagreeable and unbearingly negative....but you've got a brain. Why pretend to stand with a bunch of idiots who can't process information beyond a 5th grade level?

the only reason you will keep those Rights are the guns in the hands of millions of Americans......without the ability to enforce our Rights the Bill of Rights is just a piece of paper...

 

[DarkFury]

You say the same about the rest of the Bill of Rights, douche?

...this outcry from nutbags isn't about rights. It's about fear. .

If you insist on putting it that way, douche, isn't that the very reason a Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution?

Nope. .... It wasn't fear......

That's exactly what it was; a fear of the excesses of government power with which the Founders were all too familiar. The ill-considered Articles of Confederation were adopted first precisely because the men forming a new nation wanted to protect the rights of the individual from the very real threat of centralized government power. The Constitution as written would not have made it out of Philly if the Bill of Rights wasn't added to it - because the delegates knew there was something very real to fear in the unbridled power of a federal government. Turns out we needed both a reasonably strong federal government AND iron-clad restraints on its use of power.

And that's the fact, Jack.



The Bill of Rights is there expressly and specifically to protect the rights of the individual from just the kind of thinking (and consequent action) in which the democrat party has always engaged.

Damn. You agree with me.....but don't know it.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self defense. It is about national security. That's the entire point. You agree. Why are you acting like a little bitch?

IF you would learn to read the second covers TWO things.
1, The right of the state to bear arms to protect the STATE.
3, The right of the PERSON to bear arms to protect the PERSON.

Look for the COMMA you moron. Its all there.

 

[LoneLaugher]

...this outcry from nutbags isn't about rights. It's about fear. .

If you insist on putting it that way, douche, isn't that the very reason a Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution?

Nope. .... It wasn't fear......

That's exactly what it was; a fear of the excesses of government power with which the Founders were all too familiar. The ill-considered Articles of Confederation were adopted first precisely because the men forming a new nation wanted to protect the rights of the individual from the very real threat of centralized government power. The Constitution as written would not have made it out of Philly if the Bill of Rights wasn't added to it - because the delegates knew there was something very real to fear in the unbridled power of a federal government. Turns out we needed both a reasonably strong federal government AND iron-clad restraints on its use of power.

And that's the fact, Jack.



The Bill of Rights is there expressly and specifically to protect the rights of the individual from just the kind of thinking (and consequent action) in which the democrat party has always engaged.

Damn. You agree with me.....but don't know it.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self defense. It is about national security. ....

It's about both, because they are inextricably linked, ya dumbass.

Nope. If that were the case, we wouldn't have needed Scalia to make the change he made in 2008. Sorry. It ain't about self defense. It is about repelling forces of injustice..........not repelling the brown people who decided to take a walk in your neighborhood.

 

[LoneLaugher]

...this outcry from nutbags isn't about rights. It's about fear. .

If you insist on putting it that way, douche, isn't that the very reason a Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution?

Nope. .... It wasn't fear......

That's exactly what it was; a fear of the excesses of government power with which the Founders were all too familiar. The ill-considered Articles of Confederation were adopted first precisely because the men forming a new nation wanted to protect the rights of the individual from the very real threat of centralized government power. The Constitution as written would not have made it out of Philly if the Bill of Rights wasn't added to it - because the delegates knew there was something very real to fear in the unbridled power of a federal government. Turns out we needed both a reasonably strong federal government AND iron-clad restraints on its use of power.

And that's the fact, Jack.



The Bill of Rights is there expressly and specifically to protect the rights of the individual from just the kind of thinking (and consequent action) in which the democrat party has always engaged.

Damn. You agree with me.....but don't know it.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self defense. It is about national security. That's the entire point. You agree. Why are you acting like a little bitch?

IF you would learn to read the second covers TWO things.
1, The right of the state to bear arms to protect the STATE.
3, The right of the PERSON to bear arms to protect the PERSON.

Look for the COMMA you moron. Its all there.

Nope. That's not the case at all. 214 isn't enough, apparently.

 

[2aguy]

If you insist on putting it that way, douche, isn't that the very reason a Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution?

Nope. .... It wasn't fear......

That's exactly what it was; a fear of the excesses of government power with which the Founders were all too familiar. The ill-considered Articles of Confederation were adopted first precisely because the men forming a new nation wanted to protect the rights of the individual from the very real threat of centralized government power. The Constitution as written would not have made it out of Philly if the Bill of Rights wasn't added to it - because the delegates knew there was something very real to fear in the unbridled power of a federal government. Turns out we needed both a reasonably strong federal government AND iron-clad restraints on its use of power.

And that's the fact, Jack.



The Bill of Rights is there expressly and specifically to protect the rights of the individual from just the kind of thinking (and consequent action) in which the democrat party has always engaged.

Damn. You agree with me.....but don't know it.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self defense. It is about national security. ....

It's about both, because they are inextricably linked, ya dumbass.

Nope. If that were the case, we wouldn't have needed Scalia to make the change he made in 2008. Sorry. It ain't about self defense. It is about repelling forces of injustice..........not repelling the brown people who decided to take a walk in your neighborhood.

wrong and this has been pointed out...that was not the first decision on individual right to guns...........

and the Right to self defense is not given to us by the Bill of Rights....we already have that......the Bill of Rights lists them so the uninformed know what they already are........

and no, the Supreme Court does not have the final say on our Rights.....our Rights trump the 9 politically appointed lawyers....

 

[LoneLaugher]

Please. Just be honest. Stop with the "it's my right" bullshit.

You say the same about the rest of the Bill of Rights, douche?

...this outcry from nutbags isn't about rights. It's about fear. .

If you insist on putting it that way, douche, isn't that the very reason a Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution?

Nope. Dickbreath. It wasn't fear...it was enlightenment. Liberals like me understand this and don't fear the future.....because we've got those rights. The minute a dumb shit nutbag feels unhappy about something he starts screaming about how he's losing his rights. Well....those rights aren't based on a flimsy foundation and won't be stripped at anyone's whim. Frightened losers think someone is hiding under the bed waiting to grab their rights.

You aren't stupid. You are disagreeable and unbearingly negative....but you've got a brain. Why pretend to stand with a bunch of idiots who can't process information beyond a 5th grade level?

the only reason you will keep those Rights are the guns in the hands of millions of Americans......without the ability to enforce our Rights the Bill of Rights is just a piece of paper...

I'm a gun owner, asshole. And I don't mind taking a test, being registered and buying insurance for it. That's because I'm normal. If my rights REALLY get taken.....I'll do more than type. You.......just want personal security. You live in fear of a PERSON.....not a government.

 

[2aguy]

You say the same about the rest of the Bill of Rights, douche?

...this outcry from nutbags isn't about rights. It's about fear. .

If you insist on putting it that way, douche, isn't that the very reason a Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution?

Nope. Dickbreath. It wasn't fear...it was enlightenment. Liberals like me understand this and don't fear the future.....because we've got those rights. The minute a dumb shit nutbag feels unhappy about something he starts screaming about how he's losing his rights. Well....those rights aren't based on a flimsy foundation and won't be stripped at anyone's whim. Frightened losers think someone is hiding under the bed waiting to grab their rights.

You aren't stupid. You are disagreeable and unbearingly negative....but you've got a brain. Why pretend to stand with a bunch of idiots who can't process information beyond a 5th grade level?

the only reason you will keep those Rights are the guns in the hands of millions of Americans......without the ability to enforce our Rights the Bill of Rights is just a piece of paper...

I'm a gun owner, asshole. And I don't mind taking a test, being registered and buying insurance for it. That's because I'm normal. If my rights REALLY get taken.....I'll do more than type. You.......just want personal security. You live in fear of a PERSON.....not a government.

 

[Unkotare]

If you insist on putting it that way, douche, isn't that the very reason a Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution?

Nope. .... It wasn't fear......

That's exactly what it was; a fear of the excesses of government power with which the Founders were all too familiar. The ill-considered Articles of Confederation were adopted first precisely because the men forming a new nation wanted to protect the rights of the individual from the very real threat of centralized government power. The Constitution as written would not have made it out of Philly if the Bill of Rights wasn't added to it - because the delegates knew there was something very real to fear in the unbridled power of a federal government. Turns out we needed both a reasonably strong federal government AND iron-clad restraints on its use of power.

And that's the fact, Jack.



The Bill of Rights is there expressly and specifically to protect the rights of the individual from just the kind of thinking (and consequent action) in which the democrat party has always engaged.

Damn. You agree with me.....but don't know it.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self defense. It is about national security. ....

It's about both, because they are inextricably linked, ya dumbass.

Nope. If that were the case, we wouldn't have needed Scalia to make the change he made in 2008. Sorry. It ain't about self defense. It is about repelling forces of injustice..........not repelling the brown people who decided to take a walk in your neighborhood.

Scalia didn't write the 2nd Amendment and he didn't change it. You fail again. Nice of you to bring your racist straw man out for a visit, by the way. Typical.

 

[LoneLaugher]

...this outcry from nutbags isn't about rights. It's about fear. .

If you insist on putting it that way, douche, isn't that the very reason a Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution?

Nope. Dickbreath. It wasn't fear...it was enlightenment. Liberals like me understand this and don't fear the future.....because we've got those rights. The minute a dumb shit nutbag feels unhappy about something he starts screaming about how he's losing his rights. Well....those rights aren't based on a flimsy foundation and won't be stripped at anyone's whim. Frightened losers think someone is hiding under the bed waiting to grab their rights.

You aren't stupid. You are disagreeable and unbearingly negative....but you've got a brain. Why pretend to stand with a bunch of idiots who can't process information beyond a 5th grade level?

the only reason you will keep those Rights are the guns in the hands of millions of Americans......without the ability to enforce our Rights the Bill of Rights is just a piece of paper...

I'm a gun owner, asshole. And I don't mind taking a test, being registered and buying insurance for it. That's because I'm normal. If my rights REALLY get taken.....I'll do more than type. You.......just want personal security. You live in fear of a PERSON.....not a government.

The truth is often called lame by you nutbags.

Living in fear must be tough.

 

[LoneLaugher]

Nope. .... It wasn't fear......

That's exactly what it was; a fear of the excesses of government power with which the Founders were all too familiar. The ill-considered Articles of Confederation were adopted first precisely because the men forming a new nation wanted to protect the rights of the individual from the very real threat of centralized government power. The Constitution as written would not have made it out of Philly if the Bill of Rights wasn't added to it - because the delegates knew there was something very real to fear in the unbridled power of a federal government. Turns out we needed both a reasonably strong federal government AND iron-clad restraints on its use of power.

And that's the fact, Jack.



The Bill of Rights is there expressly and specifically to protect the rights of the individual from just the kind of thinking (and consequent action) in which the democrat party has always engaged.

Damn. You agree with me.....but don't know it.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self defense. It is about national security. ....

It's about both, because they are inextricably linked, ya dumbass.

Nope. If that were the case, we wouldn't have needed Scalia to make the change he made in 2008. Sorry. It ain't about self defense. It is about repelling forces of injustice..........not repelling the brown people who decided to take a walk in your neighborhood.

Scalia didn't write the 2nd Amendment and he didn't change it. You fail again. Nice of you to bring your racist straw man out for a visit, by the way. Typical.

Do you know what Scalia did? Why was it necessary?

 

[2aguy]

That's exactly what it was; a fear of the excesses of government power with which the Founders were all too familiar. The ill-considered Articles of Confederation were adopted first precisely because the men forming a new nation wanted to protect the rights of the individual from the very real threat of centralized government power. The Constitution as written would not have made it out of Philly if the Bill of Rights wasn't added to it - because the delegates knew there was something very real to fear in the unbridled power of a federal government. Turns out we needed both a reasonably strong federal government AND iron-clad restraints on its use of power.

And that's the fact, Jack.



The Bill of Rights is there expressly and specifically to protect the rights of the individual from just the kind of thinking (and consequent action) in which the democrat party has always engaged.

Damn. You agree with me.....but don't know it.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self defense. It is about national security. ....

It's about both, because they are inextricably linked, ya dumbass.

Nope. If that were the case, we wouldn't have needed Scalia to make the change he made in 2008. Sorry. It ain't about self defense. It is about repelling forces of injustice..........not repelling the brown people who decided to take a walk in your neighborhood.

Scalia didn't write the 2nd Amendment and he didn't change it. You fail again. Nice of you to bring your racist straw man out for a visit, by the way. Typical.

Do you know what Scalia did? Why was it necessary?

Because you leftards still can't read the 2nd Amendment and understand it.......

 

[DarkFury]

If you insist on putting it that way, douche, isn't that the very reason a Bill of Rights was put into the Constitution?

Nope. .... It wasn't fear......

That's exactly what it was; a fear of the excesses of government power with which the Founders were all too familiar. The ill-considered Articles of Confederation were adopted first precisely because the men forming a new nation wanted to protect the rights of the individual from the very real threat of centralized government power. The Constitution as written would not have made it out of Philly if the Bill of Rights wasn't added to it - because the delegates knew there was something very real to fear in the unbridled power of a federal government. Turns out we needed both a reasonably strong federal government AND iron-clad restraints on its use of power.

And that's the fact, Jack.



The Bill of Rights is there expressly and specifically to protect the rights of the individual from just the kind of thinking (and consequent action) in which the democrat party has always engaged.

Damn. You agree with me.....but don't know it.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self defense. It is about national security. That's the entire point. You agree. Why are you acting like a little bitch?

IF you would learn to read the second covers TWO things.
1, The right of the state to bear arms to protect the STATE.
3, The right of the PERSON to bear arms to protect the PERSON.

Look for the COMMA you moron. Its all there.

Nope. That's not the case at all. 214 isn't enough, apparently.

The state was given the RIGHTS of guns to protect its self from abusive federal government. That's a MILITIA idiot.

The PERSON was given guns to protect themselves from abusive Federal OR State government.

The framers foresaw the chance that an armed state could overrun and take over a NON armed state.

They actually foresaw the possible forming of a "domestic terrorist" group that could take a persons PERSONAL freedoms two hundred and some odd years BEFORE we faced it.

Sounds like they were pretty damn smart to me.

 

[Unkotare]

That's exactly what it was; a fear of the excesses of government power with which the Founders were all too familiar. The ill-considered Articles of Confederation were adopted first precisely because the men forming a new nation wanted to protect the rights of the individual from the very real threat of centralized government power. The Constitution as written would not have made it out of Philly if the Bill of Rights wasn't added to it - because the delegates knew there was something very real to fear in the unbridled power of a federal government. Turns out we needed both a reasonably strong federal government AND iron-clad restraints on its use of power.

And that's the fact, Jack.



The Bill of Rights is there expressly and specifically to protect the rights of the individual from just the kind of thinking (and consequent action) in which the democrat party has always engaged.

Damn. You agree with me.....but don't know it.

The 2nd Amendment is not about self defense. It is about national security. ....

It's about both, because they are inextricably linked, ya dumbass.

Nope. If that were the case, we wouldn't have needed Scalia to make the change he made in 2008. Sorry. It ain't about self defense. It is about repelling forces of injustice..........not repelling the brown people who decided to take a walk in your neighborhood.

Scalia didn't write the 2nd Amendment and he didn't change it. You fail again. Nice of you to bring your racist straw man out for a visit, by the way. Typical.

Do you know what Scalia did? Why was it necessary?

He sure as hell didn't "change" the 2nd Amendment (of course ). His opinion was a clarification that exposed the hackneyed liberal lie that the 2nd is somehow only applicable to actual militias. He pointed out that such a suggested limitation on the 2nd was a false reading. His opinion references both individual self defense AND a larger defense against an oppressive government, should it ever come to that.

 

[DarkFury]

I HAVE to break in and say I AM TOTALLY enjoying watching Unkotare THRASH and hand LoneLaugher his ass on a stick.

 

[PredFan]

Massachusetts town want to know.

"Crush enemies. See dem driven before you. And listen to da lamentation ov da women."

Your reason?

Mass. town orders conceal-carry applicants to say why they need a gun -- in writing

I don't need a gun. But it's called the Bill of Rights, and not the Bill of Needs.