2nd Amendment should not be infringed upon because of Las Vegas shooter.

[MaryL]

I like guns. I like the second amendment. But we need to repeal that mess, we have had numerous presidents shot down, let alone all the faceless people over the past years slaughtered BY guns, We need to be rational, and end THAT.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

I like guns. I like the second amendment. But we need to repeal that mess, we have had numerous presidents shot down, let alone all the faceless people over the past years slaughtered BY guns, We need to be rational, and end THAT.

Getting rid of the 2A won't solve any problem, as an individual, I still have the right to own a weapon via the 1689 English Bill of Rights, and I have the inherent and natural right to self defense. :SHRUG:

 

[MaryL]

So, getting rid of guns won't stop gun violence. How so?

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

Unable to cite a single source to back his claims, danielpalos has tried every dirty trick ever heard of in order to promote some ridiculous platform regarding gun control that only he understands.

His use of Hitler's National Socialism (repeating a lie over and over until it's accepted as truth) is despicable and a personal insult to me. If anyone on this board understands what point he's trying to make, please inform us.

The founding fathers, having had to rise up against a tyrannical government founded our nation on God given, inherent, natural, absolute, unalienable Rights that are above the law. The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Right to Life AND Liberty. Without the requisite tools to defend your Rights, they aren't worth a fart in wild whirlwind.

The tools the Framers intended citizens to use to defend their rights are the ballot box and the courts – not guns.

Indeed, there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that ‘authorizes’ citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a government lawfully elected in accordance with the Constitution reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

Citizens have the right to posses firearms to protect life and property, the First Amendment protects citizens’ rights and protected liberties.

 

[Liquid Reigns]

So, getting rid of guns won't stop gun violence. How so?

Getting rid of the 2A won't get rid of guns. :SHRUG:

 

[Humorme]

Unable to cite a single source to back his claims, danielpalos has tried every dirty trick ever heard of in order to promote some ridiculous platform regarding gun control that only he understands.

His use of Hitler's National Socialism (repeating a lie over and over until it's accepted as truth) is despicable and a personal insult to me. If anyone on this board understands what point he's trying to make, please inform us.

The founding fathers, having had to rise up against a tyrannical government founded our nation on God given, inherent, natural, absolute, unalienable Rights that are above the law. The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Right to Life AND Liberty. Without the requisite tools to defend your Rights, they aren't worth a fart in wild whirlwind.

The tools the Framers intended citizens to use to defend their rights are the ballot box and the courts – not guns.

Indeed, there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that ‘authorizes’ citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a government lawfully elected in accordance with the Constitution reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

Citizens have the right to posses firearms to protect life and property, the First Amendment protects citizens’ rights and protected liberties.

You haven't studied American history, have you?

Unable to cite a single source to back his claims, danielpalos has tried every dirty trick ever heard of in order to promote some ridiculous platform regarding gun control that only he understands.

His use of Hitler's National Socialism (repeating a lie over and over until it's accepted as truth) is despicable and a personal insult to me. If anyone on this board understands what point he's trying to make, please inform us.

The founding fathers, having had to rise up against a tyrannical government founded our nation on God given, inherent, natural, absolute, unalienable Rights that are above the law. The Right to keep and bear Arms is an extension of your Right to Life AND Liberty. Without the requisite tools to defend your Rights, they aren't worth a fart in wild whirlwind.

The tools the Framers intended citizens to use to defend their rights are the ballot box and the courts – not guns.

Indeed, there’s nothing in the history, text, or case law of the Second Amendment that ‘authorizes’ citizens to ‘take up arms’ against a government lawfully elected in accordance with the Constitution reflecting the will of the majority of the people.

Citizens have the right to posses firearms to protect life and property, the First Amendment protects citizens’ rights and protected liberties.

You're obviously not attuned to the First Principles of this country:

"...whenever any form of government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or abolish it, & to institute new government..." (an excerpt from the Declaration of Independence)

“Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed, as they are in almost every country in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any band of regular troops.”
– Noah Webster, An Examination of the Leading Principles of the Federal Constitution, October 10, 1787


"The Constitution of most of our states (and of the United States) assert that all power is inherent in the people; that they may exercise it by themselves; that it is their right and duty to be at all times armed.”
– Thomas Jefferson, letter to to John Cartwright, 5 June 1824

"The right of the citizens to keep and bear arms has justly been considered, as the palladium of the liberties of a republic; since it offers a strong moral check against the usurpation and arbitrary power of rulers; and will generally, even if these are successful in the first instance, enable the people to resist and triumph over them.”
– Joseph Story, Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States, 1833

Are you danielpalos posting under another name? I noticed that the moment he stops, another person will rekindle this B.S. and most of the things I can say to refute your errors will, most likely suffer strikethroughs so that nobody will be inclined to read the truth. AFTER YOU HAVE EXHAUSTED ALL OF YOUR LEGAL AND NONVIOLENT AVENUES OF REDRESS, YOU ARE AUTHORIZED TO USE FORCE IN ORDER TO STOP TYRANNY.

 

[Humorme]

"The general misconception is that any statute passed by legislators bearing the appearance of law constitutes the law of the land. The Constitution of the United States is the supreme law of the land, and any statue, to be valid, must be in agreement. It is impossible for both the Constitution and a law violating it to be valid; one must prevail. This is succinctly stated as follows:

The general rule is that an unconstitutional statute, though having the form and name of law, is in reality no law, but is wholly void, and ineffective for any purpose; since unconstitutionality dates from the time of its enactment, and not merely from the date of the decision so branding it.

An unconstitutional law, in legal contemplation, is as inoperative as if it had never been passed. Such a statute leaves the question that it purports to settle just as it would be had the statute not been enacted.

Since an unconstitutional law is void, the general principals follow that it imposes no duties, confers no rights, creates no office, bestows no power or authority on anyone, affords no protection, and justifies no acts performed under it . . .

A void act cannot be legally consistent with a valid one.

An unconstitutional law cannot operate to supersede any existing valid law.

Indeed, insofar as a statute runs counter to the fundamental law of the land, it is superseded thereby.

No one is bound to obey an unconstitutional law and no courts are bound to enforce it."

— Sixteenth American Jurisprudence, Second Edition, Section 177. (late 2nd Ed. Section 256)

"Let Mr. Madison tell me when did liberty ever exist when the sword and the purse were given up from the people? Unless a miracle shall interpose, no nation ever did, nor ever can retain its liberty after the loss of the sword and the purse.

..Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect every one who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined." Patrick Henry

Authorized? Irrelevant. The Second Amendment serves a bottom line purpose AFTER all other avenues of redress have been exhausted.

 

[Humorme]

So, getting rid of guns won't stop gun violence. How so?

Since you did not quote anyone, I'm not sure who you are addressing.

The United States is not even in the TOP TEN most violent nations in the world.

Most Dangerous Countries In the World - Top Ten List - TheTopTens®

Most, if not all the TOP TEN most violent countries have gun control; NONE of them have the Second Amendment. If you were sick of the killing and violence, you would concern yourself with the root of the problem, NOT the symptoms.

Wholesale "legal" drugs being prescribed with no regulation, the flooding of America with foreigners (ESPECIALLY Muslims at war with the U.S.), the illegal drug trade, ethnic / religious / racial tensions that we haven't addressed along with the fact that America does not address the problem of having scores of mentally ill people not being cared for are more relevant to the who is being killed as opposed to by what methods they are being killed.

 

[Humorme]

We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.

No one's talking about infringing the Second Amendment, they're talking about amending the constitution to get RID OF the Second Amendment.

And no, the 2A shouldn't be got rid of because of the Vegas shooting, but because of the 10,000 people a year who die because of guns in the US.

You're not in the ballpark relative to numbers, but by your position, then alcohol should be banned. More people die due to alcoholic beverages than firearms. For every person killed by a firearm in America, FIVE nonsmokers will die due to second hand smoke because of cigarettes. Do you have a proposal to ban them as well?

300,000 people die each year from obesity. The major sources of the problem: fast food, sodas, and refined sugar. Do you advocate we crack down on fast food and require less sugar in sodas?

Car accidents cause more deaths than firearms. Should we outlaw cars and concentrate on building more buses?

Not in the ballpark? No, I am the fucking ballpark.

Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control

In the United States, annual firearm homicides total

2014: 10,945
2013: 11,208
2012: 11,622
2011: 11,068
2010: 11,078
2009: 11,493
2008: 12,179
2007: 12,632
2006: 12,791
2005: 12,352
2004: 11,624
2003: 11,920
2002: 11,829
2001: 11,348
2000: 10,801
1999: 10,828
1998: 9,257

Alcohol is different to guns. If it were merely 10,000 people a year committing suicide with guns, then I'd have less of a problem with it.

I believe that smoking should be limited, yes. People can smoke, whatever, but I don't want them smoking around me. The UK implemented a smoking ban and it was great, you could go to the pub and not get filled with smoke. Go to restaurants and the same. If an individual wants to smoke around other smokers, then whatever, but not around non-smokers.

I have actually called for things to combat obesity. In the UK companies like Coca-Cola, Mars, Pepsi, all of those, get massive tax deals and they hardly pay anything. Healthy food suppliers are paying full taxes. It's ridiculous.

But it works for the rich. You buy their sugary items, they get rich. Then you go to hospital and the hospitals and insurance companies get rich too. None of these want to lose their money, so they make sure Americans are fat ass sugar guzzlers.

16,238 murders per year in the U.S. Of those 11,068 are by firearms.

How many people are murdered every day in the United States?

That's the facts.

If you take out the people killed by political jihadists (i.e. Muslims) and that can be done by banning Muslims from entering the United States what would the new figure be?

Now, deduct the numbers of people on SSRIs that are not being monitored that end up committing mass shootings, what would the new figure be?

Take those who were KNOWN TO BE MENTALLY UNSTABLE AND POSING A THREAT off the streets, what would the new figure be?

I'll bet the government never does a yearly tally to tell you those answers. All totaled, it's most gun violence.

 

[frigidweirdo]

We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.

No one's talking about infringing the Second Amendment, they're talking about amending the constitution to get RID OF the Second Amendment.

And no, the 2A shouldn't be got rid of because of the Vegas shooting, but because of the 10,000 people a year who die because of guns in the US.

You're not in the ballpark relative to numbers, but by your position, then alcohol should be banned. More people die due to alcoholic beverages than firearms. For every person killed by a firearm in America, FIVE nonsmokers will die due to second hand smoke because of cigarettes. Do you have a proposal to ban them as well?

300,000 people die each year from obesity. The major sources of the problem: fast food, sodas, and refined sugar. Do you advocate we crack down on fast food and require less sugar in sodas?

Car accidents cause more deaths than firearms. Should we outlaw cars and concentrate on building more buses?

Not in the ballpark? No, I am the fucking ballpark.

Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control

In the United States, annual firearm homicides total

2014: 10,945
2013: 11,208
2012: 11,622
2011: 11,068
2010: 11,078
2009: 11,493
2008: 12,179
2007: 12,632
2006: 12,791
2005: 12,352
2004: 11,624
2003: 11,920
2002: 11,829
2001: 11,348
2000: 10,801
1999: 10,828
1998: 9,257

Alcohol is different to guns. If it were merely 10,000 people a year committing suicide with guns, then I'd have less of a problem with it.

I believe that smoking should be limited, yes. People can smoke, whatever, but I don't want them smoking around me. The UK implemented a smoking ban and it was great, you could go to the pub and not get filled with smoke. Go to restaurants and the same. If an individual wants to smoke around other smokers, then whatever, but not around non-smokers.

I have actually called for things to combat obesity. In the UK companies like Coca-Cola, Mars, Pepsi, all of those, get massive tax deals and they hardly pay anything. Healthy food suppliers are paying full taxes. It's ridiculous.

But it works for the rich. You buy their sugary items, they get rich. Then you go to hospital and the hospitals and insurance companies get rich too. None of these want to lose their money, so they make sure Americans are fat ass sugar guzzlers.

16,238 murders per year in the U.S. Of those 11,068 are by firearms.

How many people are murdered every day in the United States?

That's the facts.

If you take out the people killed by political jihadists (i.e. Muslims) and that can be done by banning Muslims from entering the United States what would the new figure be?

Now, deduct the numbers of people on SSRIs that are not being monitored that end up committing mass shootings, what would the new figure be?

Take those who were KNOWN TO BE MENTALLY UNSTABLE AND POSING A THREAT off the streets, what would the new figure be?

I'll bet the government never does a yearly tally to tell you those answers. All totaled, it's most gun violence.

Okay, so you said I'm not in the ballpark, and yet, I said 10,000 a year, you said in one year there are 11,068. Sounds like the ballpark to me.

As for your concern about Muslims, how many "political jihadists" have killed?

In the USA in 2016 there were two terrorist attacks, 49 people died in Orlando and zero people died in Ohio.

You take 11,068 and you minus 49, you still have more than 11,000 attacks.

Why you're taking these people out, I have no idea. In Orlando the guy used GUNS....

 

[hunarcy]

I like guns. I like the second amendment. But we need to repeal that mess, we have had numerous presidents shot down, let alone all the faceless people over the past years slaughtered BY guns, We need to be rational, and end THAT.

I understand your position. However, I disagree and you'll never get it done.

 

[danielpalos]

no amount of appealing to ignorance will work on this anymore.

The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or you are considered, unorganized (by our republican forms of Government).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

That is utter bullshit; you've been proven wrong on that point and that is not what the law says. Do you have any new material?

How is it bullshit? That is the concept of the militia as discussed for ratification of our federal Constitution.

Simply appealing to ignorance and claiming You are right, only may work, twice a day, right winger.

 

[danielpalos]

Still unable to document his claims, danienpalos is trying yet again to lie by the repetition of some cockamamie cow dung he invented to sound good, but is totally meaningless. He does not understand I'm not appealing to his ignorance of the law. AND now I'm handicapped because my posts have strikethroughs which discourages people from reading my posts.

The harsh, hard core reality is that the Second Amendment, like the entire Bill of Rights, is a limitation on the government, NOT on the citizenry. danielpalos argument is shot all to Hell (you gotta love the pun) when you consider that the federal government sells military rifles and pistols to the general public without them being in a militia.

Buying M1 Garands from the US Government - CMP - Civilian Marksmanship Program - GunsAmerica Digest

Just meaningless gibberish.

 

[Humorme]

no amount of appealing to ignorance will work on this anymore.

The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or you are considered, unorganized (by our republican forms of Government).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

That is utter bullshit; you've been proven wrong on that point and that is not what the law says. Do you have any new material?

How is it bullshit? That is the concept of the militia as discussed for ratification of our federal Constitution.

Simply appealing to ignorance and claiming You are right, only may work, twice a day, right winger.

You have NEVER been able to cite a single source in your favor; that is what proves you wrong, commie.

 

[Humorme]

no amount of appealing to ignorance will work on this anymore.

The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or you are considered, unorganized (by our republican forms of Government).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

That is utter bullshit; you've been proven wrong on that point and that is not what the law says. Do you have any new material?

How is it bullshit? That is the concept of the militia as discussed for ratification of our federal Constitution.

Simply appealing to ignorance and claiming You are right, only may work, twice a day, right winger.

You are the one posting gibberish. WTF is this you can't appeal to ignorance of the law? That is absolutely meaningless. I realize that you are the most ignorant poster on these boards relative to the law. I'm not appealing to you. You're not the only poster on this board.

You don't have to be in a militia to own a firearm; the Right to keep and bear Arms is inclusive of a Right to own your own private, individual Arms.

 

[danielpalos]

no amount of appealing to ignorance will work on this anymore.

The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or you are considered, unorganized (by our republican forms of Government).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

That is utter bullshit; you've been proven wrong on that point and that is not what the law says. Do you have any new material?

How is it bullshit? That is the concept of the militia as discussed for ratification of our federal Constitution.

Simply appealing to ignorance and claiming You are right, only may work, twice a day, right winger.

You have NEVER been able to cite a single source in your favor; that is what proves you wrong, commie.

dude; You must be on the Right Wing.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

 

[Humorme]

We as a nation should not accept any Democratic attempt to infringe on our second amendment rights, by the likes of a Diane Feinstein or any other democratic politician, because of the Las Vegas shooter.

No one's talking about infringing the Second Amendment, they're talking about amending the constitution to get RID OF the Second Amendment.

And no, the 2A shouldn't be got rid of because of the Vegas shooting, but because of the 10,000 people a year who die because of guns in the US.

You're not in the ballpark relative to numbers, but by your position, then alcohol should be banned. More people die due to alcoholic beverages than firearms. For every person killed by a firearm in America, FIVE nonsmokers will die due to second hand smoke because of cigarettes. Do you have a proposal to ban them as well?

300,000 people die each year from obesity. The major sources of the problem: fast food, sodas, and refined sugar. Do you advocate we crack down on fast food and require less sugar in sodas?

Car accidents cause more deaths than firearms. Should we outlaw cars and concentrate on building more buses?

Not in the ballpark? No, I am the fucking ballpark.

Guns in the United States — Firearms, gun law and gun control

In the United States, annual firearm homicides total

2014: 10,945
2013: 11,208
2012: 11,622
2011: 11,068
2010: 11,078
2009: 11,493
2008: 12,179
2007: 12,632
2006: 12,791
2005: 12,352
2004: 11,624
2003: 11,920
2002: 11,829
2001: 11,348
2000: 10,801
1999: 10,828
1998: 9,257

Alcohol is different to guns. If it were merely 10,000 people a year committing suicide with guns, then I'd have less of a problem with it.

I believe that smoking should be limited, yes. People can smoke, whatever, but I don't want them smoking around me. The UK implemented a smoking ban and it was great, you could go to the pub and not get filled with smoke. Go to restaurants and the same. If an individual wants to smoke around other smokers, then whatever, but not around non-smokers.

I have actually called for things to combat obesity. In the UK companies like Coca-Cola, Mars, Pepsi, all of those, get massive tax deals and they hardly pay anything. Healthy food suppliers are paying full taxes. It's ridiculous.

But it works for the rich. You buy their sugary items, they get rich. Then you go to hospital and the hospitals and insurance companies get rich too. None of these want to lose their money, so they make sure Americans are fat ass sugar guzzlers.

16,238 murders per year in the U.S. Of those 11,068 are by firearms.

How many people are murdered every day in the United States?

That's the facts.

If you take out the people killed by political jihadists (i.e. Muslims) and that can be done by banning Muslims from entering the United States what would the new figure be?

Now, deduct the numbers of people on SSRIs that are not being monitored that end up committing mass shootings, what would the new figure be?

Take those who were KNOWN TO BE MENTALLY UNSTABLE AND POSING A THREAT off the streets, what would the new figure be?

I'll bet the government never does a yearly tally to tell you those answers. All totaled, it's most gun violence.

Okay, so you said I'm not in the ballpark, and yet, I said 10,000 a year, you said in one year there are 11,068. Sounds like the ballpark to me.

As for your concern about Muslims, how many "political jihadists" have killed?

In the USA in 2016 there were two terrorist attacks, 49 people died in Orlando and zero people died in Ohio.

You take 11,068 and you minus 49, you still have more than 11,000 attacks.

Why you're taking these people out, I have no idea. In Orlando the guy used GUNS....

So, you focus on one, single event, ignore the balance of the question and back to your deceptive argument. Let me fix this for you:

Most, if not all the mass shootings could have been stopped without gun control. That is a fact.

The Fort Hood Shooter: A Different Psychiatric Perspective | HuffPost

Every mass shooting over last 20 years has one thing in common... and it's not guns

Adam Lanza | SSRI Stories

CNN - Columbine shooter was prescribed anti-depressant - April 29, 1999

The Role Of SSRI Anti-Depressants in the Columbine Shooting : Free Download & Streaming : Internet Archive

How many more do you need? Let's deal with the WHOLE TRUTH.

 

[Humorme]

no amount of appealing to ignorance will work on this anymore.

The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or you are considered, unorganized (by our republican forms of Government).

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

That is utter bullshit; you've been proven wrong on that point and that is not what the law says. Do you have any new material?

How is it bullshit? That is the concept of the militia as discussed for ratification of our federal Constitution.

Simply appealing to ignorance and claiming You are right, only may work, twice a day, right winger.

You have NEVER been able to cite a single source in your favor; that is what proves you wrong, commie.

dude; You must be on the Right Wing.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

danielpalos, you must be a communist provocateur. The law is what the law is. The founding fathers had a well learned reason to intend for the general public to have their own private Arms.

You have not been able to acknowledge what the law IS... you try to sell easily disprovable bullshit that is NOT the way our law is practiced. The right is just as adamant that I'm a leftie every time we discuss immigration law. Yet the law is what the law is - and it does not favor them, just as the Second Amendment does not coincide with the snake oil you try to sell here.

When you see cops killing innocent people in the streets; when the government does not acknowledge nor respect the Constitution; when right and wrong are decided by power brokers that could enslave you on a whim, it is pure insanity to give up the Right to keep and bear Arms just because you hate guns.

You've been shown that your terminology is wrong. You've been proven to be a liar. When the right celebrated the Heller decision, they denounced me for explaining how it was an attack on your unalienable Rights. I realize that you and the right don't like this, but you guys really don't have a monopoly on everything. There are views other than the simple mindedness you and they are selling.

BTW, What in the Hell do you find so funny about the fact that you cannot cite anything that supports your position and I have to be the one that points out the weakness in your posts?

 

[danielpalos]

no amount of appealing to ignorance will work on this anymore.

The People are the Militia; You are either well regulated or you are considered, unorganized (by our republican forms of Government).

That is utter bullshit; you've been proven wrong on that point and that is not what the law says. Do you have any new material?

How is it bullshit? That is the concept of the militia as discussed for ratification of our federal Constitution.

Simply appealing to ignorance and claiming You are right, only may work, twice a day, right winger.

You have NEVER been able to cite a single source in your favor; that is what proves you wrong, commie.

dude; You must be on the Right Wing.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

danielpalos, you must be a communist provocateur. The law is what the law is. The founding fathers had a well learned reason to intend for the general public to have their own private Arms.

You have not been able to acknowledge what the law IS... you try to sell easily disprovable bullshit that is NOT the way our law is practiced. The right is just as adamant that I'm a leftie every time we discuss immigration law. Yet the law is what the law is - and it does not favor them, just as the Second Amendment does not coincide with the snake oil you try to sell here.

When you see cops killing innocent people in the streets; when the government does not acknowledge nor respect the Constitution; when right and wrong are decided by power brokers that could enslave you on a whim, it is pure insanity to give up the Right to keep and bear Arms just because you hate guns.

You've been shown that your terminology is wrong. You've been proven to be a liar. When the right celebrated the Heller decision, they denounced me for explaining how it was an attack on your unalienable Rights. I realize that you and the right don't like this, but you guys really don't have a monopoly on everything. There are views other than the simple mindedness you and they are selling.

Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights, in any way, shape, or form.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

It is definitely not, the unorganized militia.

 

[Humorme]

That is utter bullshit; you've been proven wrong on that point and that is not what the law says. Do you have any new material?

How is it bullshit? That is the concept of the militia as discussed for ratification of our federal Constitution.

Simply appealing to ignorance and claiming You are right, only may work, twice a day, right winger.

You have NEVER been able to cite a single source in your favor; that is what proves you wrong, commie.

dude; You must be on the Right Wing.

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
— George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on
Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

danielpalos, you must be a communist provocateur. The law is what the law is. The founding fathers had a well learned reason to intend for the general public to have their own private Arms.

You have not been able to acknowledge what the law IS... you try to sell easily disprovable bullshit that is NOT the way our law is practiced. The right is just as adamant that I'm a leftie every time we discuss immigration law. Yet the law is what the law is - and it does not favor them, just as the Second Amendment does not coincide with the snake oil you try to sell here.

When you see cops killing innocent people in the streets; when the government does not acknowledge nor respect the Constitution; when right and wrong are decided by power brokers that could enslave you on a whim, it is pure insanity to give up the Right to keep and bear Arms just because you hate guns.

You've been shown that your terminology is wrong. You've been proven to be a liar. When the right celebrated the Heller decision, they denounced me for explaining how it was an attack on your unalienable Rights. I realize that you and the right don't like this, but you guys really don't have a monopoly on everything. There are views other than the simple mindedness you and they are selling.

Our Second Amendment is not about natural rights, in any way, shape, or form.

Our Second Amendment is clearly about what is necessary to the security of a free State.

It is definitely not, the unorganized militia.

For the umpteenth fucking time, YOU ARE THE ONLY SWINGING RICHARD MAKING THIS ABOUT NATURAL RIGHTS. You're still wrong. The Second Amendment, according to the United States Supreme Court, ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual Right to keep and bear Arms. No matter how many times you try to dodge, deflect, and lie about it, that is their RULING.

While the Second Amendment is about the security of a free state, that's is not the whole truth. The Second Amendment is also about the RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE. You denying that will never alter that fact.