Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
You mean to say certain assault weapons?
No one is suggesting we should take away second amendment rights to own guns...
I don't think there is a second Amendment "right" to own guns.
In fact, there are no "rights" and never were. There are privilages society lets you have.
Anyone who thinks he has "rights" needs to look up "Japanese-Americans, 1942" to watch how fast "rights" vanish.
So the question is, under what circumstances should society allow you the privilage of owning a firearm?
My opinion, if you don't need it as part of your business or work, you don't need one. But if you are going to allow it, a gun should be like a car. You should get licensed, insured and registered if you are going to have one and you lose your privilages if you abuse them.
If the gun owners are going to claim no gun law is going to stop Adam Lanza without violating their privilage to own guns, then, yeah, then we need to take everyone's guns, because the cost of this privilage is too high.
I have never read a statement that shows a such complete ignorance of history and the text and intent of the Bill of Rights. A brief history lesson for the incorrect.
During the debates on the adoption of the Constitution, its opponents repeatedly charged that the Constitution as drafted would open the way to tyranny by the central government. Fresh in their minds was the memory of the British violation of civil rights before and during the Revolution. They demanded a "bill of rights" that would spell out the immunities of individual citizens.
The anti-Federalists, demanding a more concise, unequivocal Constitution, one that laid out for all to see the right of the people and limitations of the power of government, claimed that the brevity of the document only revealed its inferior nature. Richard Henry Lee despaired at the lack of provisions to protect "those essential rights of mankind without which liberty cannot exist." Trading the old government for the new without such a bill of rights, Lee argued, would be trading Scylla for Charybdis.
James Wilson maintained that a bill of rights was superfluous because all power not expressly delegated to the new government was reserved to the people. It was clear, however, that in this argument the anti-Federalists held the upper hand. Even Thomas Jefferson, generally in favor of the new government, wrote to Madison that a bill of rights was "what the people are entitled to against every government on earth."
Simple Simon.
Im safer with my AR-15
That's probably what Nancy Lanza thought... until her kid shot her with it.
A gun in the home is 43 times more likely to kill a member of the household than a bad guy.
And your 90% more likely to break your neck in a bathtub.
The thing is, I need to take a bath.
I don't need to own a gun. and neither do you.
QUIOTE...
As it is they are now trying to say, ok, you can have the right to bear arms but not bullets for them! Thats obviously contradictory but perfectly liberal.
LOL. Good one.
The argument that we don't have rights and that it is the government that grants us privileges makes me vomit in my mouth a bit. It is US that gives the government the privilege to exist at all.
The thing is, I need to take a bath.
I don't need to own a gun. and neither do you.
Sure I do.
I protect myself with it.
It is required for militia service should my State call their forces up.
The thing is, I need to take a bath.
I don't need to own a gun. and neither do you.
Sure I do.
I protect myself with it.
It is required for militia service should my State call their forces up.
If you are so keen to be in a "militia', then go down to your local National Guard Armory and join up. After you are properly trained, they will give you a gun that you will be issued when you NEED it, not when you want it.
exactly my point...
My AR-15 is secure. You have no point.
again- so was Nancy's until she was shot with it...
Or maybe he shot her with one of her other "secure" guns, and then took the AR-15 and shot all those kids.
My AR-15 is secure. You have no point.
again- so was Nancy's until she was shot with it...
Or maybe he shot her with one of her other "secure" guns, and then took the AR-15 and shot all those kids.
According to the official narrative, Nancy was not killed with the AR-15. Beyond that, your argument is beyond invalid. It is not your right to tell others what they may have in their home. I wish you thick headed little Dick Taters would recognize that fact.
There's a whole list of things the government says you can't have in your home, from kiddie porn to marijuana to feathers from a Bald Eagle.
None of which are as dangerous as an AR-15.
There's a whole list of things the government says you can't have in your home, from kiddie porn to marijuana to feathers from a Bald Eagle.
None of which are as dangerous as an AR-15.
None of which are Constitutionally protected, SCOTUS upheld and State incorporated.
There's a whole list of things the government says you can't have in your home, from kiddie porn to marijuana to feathers from a Bald Eagle.
None of which are as dangerous as an AR-15.
None of which are Constitutionally protected, SCOTUS upheld and State incorporated.
And another SCOTUS decision, guns only apply to "well-regulated militias" again.
Even Heller admitted that some kinds of guns can be limited and controlled... It's why you can't get that 88MM Howitzer you've had your eye on.
And another SCOTUS decision, guns only apply to "well-regulated militias" again.
again- so was Nancy's until she was shot with it...
Or maybe he shot her with one of her other "secure" guns, and then took the AR-15 and shot all those kids.
According to the official narrative, Nancy was not killed with the AR-15. Beyond that, your argument is beyond invalid. It is not your right to tell others what they may have in their home. I wish you thick headed little Dick Taters would recognize that fact.
There's a whole list of things the government says you can't have in your home, from kiddie porn to marijuana to feathers from a Bald Eagle.
None of which are as dangerous as an AR-15.
None of which are Constitutionally protected, SCOTUS upheld and State incorporated.
And another SCOTUS decision, guns only apply to "well-regulated militias" again.
Even Heller admitted that some kinds of guns can be limited and controlled... It's why you can't get that 88MM Howitzer you've had your eye on.
88mm Howitzer is not a gun ?
And another SCOTUS decision, guns only apply to "well-regulated militias" again.
I'm in the well-regulated militia.
According to the official narrative, Nancy was not killed with the AR-15. Beyond that, your argument is beyond invalid. It is not your right to tell others what they may have in their home. I wish you thick headed little Dick Taters would recognize that fact.
There's a whole list of things the government says you can't have in your home, from kiddie porn to marijuana to feathers from a Bald Eagle.
None of which are as dangerous as an AR-15.
Your understanding of private property, law and firearms is on par with a chimps understanding of stem cell research.
QUIOTE...
As it is they are now trying to say, ok, you can have the right to bear arms but not bullets for them! Thats obviously contradictory but perfectly liberal.
LOL. Good one.
The argument that we don't have rights and that it is the government that grants us privileges makes me vomit in my mouth a bit. It is US that gives the government the privilege to exist at all.
No one argued that "government" gives us privilages.
We as a society give each other privilages.
there are no "rights", there's just what society thinks you ought to be able to do.
Any fool who thinks he has "rights" should look up "Japanese Americans, 1942", to see how fast rights vanish when society is frightened enough or angry enough.
And frankly, a lot of people are angry about watching little kids being dragged out of theatres and schools in body bags because the gun industry thinks Nancy Lanza and James "Joker" Holmes are fine customers.
[
They were dragged out of schools and theaters in body bags because liberals think that the mentally ill shouldn't be institutionalized against their will or medicated against their will. The criminally insane are special, unique, all they need is more sympathy and understanding.
