From the horses ass I mean mouth Dianne Feinstein

[bigrebnc1775]

Dianne the second amendment has nothing to do with hunting.
If you want to get those dangerous weapons off the street keep the drunk's locked up in jail and from getting behind the wheel of a car. Oh and thanks for the grandfathering

Protects legitimate hunters and the rights of existing gun owners by:
grandfathering weapons legally possessed on the date of enactment;
exempting more than 900 specifically-named weapons used for hunting and sporting purposes; and
exempting antique, manually-operated, and permanently disabled weapons.

Feinstein to Introduce Updated Assault Weapons Bill in New Congress - Press Releases - News Room - United States Senator Dianne Feinstein


Just like Clinton's gun ban this will not prevent murders or mass shootings.

 

[Sallow]

She's right.

In fact, nothing in the Constitution explicity gives you a right to hunt.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

She's right.

In fact, nothing in the Constitution explicity gives you a right to hunt.

However their is a right to fight tyranny in the government and that right is in the second amendment.

 

[USNavyVet]

It's nothing more than a feel good measure for the non-thinking sector of the public, which unfortunately is around 99% of them.

 

[Sallow]

She's right.

In fact, nothing in the Constitution explicity gives you a right to hunt.

However their is a right to fight tyranny in the government and that right is in the second amendment.

No it's not.

In fact quite the opposite.

There's nothing in the Constitution that supports armed uprisings.

There's plenty in the Constitution that supports the government's right to squash armed uprisings.

 

[Rozman]

Gotta love Libs...
They are trying to regulate and control people who already do that themselves.
But it gets a big splash in the media.
The media loves to prop up Obama.
Now everyone in the Democrat party walks away feeling like they fixed this.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

She's right.

In fact, nothing in the Constitution explicity gives you a right to hunt.

However their is a right to fight tyranny in the government and that right is in the second amendment.

No it's not.

In fact quite the opposite.

There's nothing in the Constitution that supports armed uprisings.

There's plenty in the Constitution that supports the government's right to squash armed uprisings.

There is an oath some of us have taken.
It doesn't expire.

 

[USNavyVet]

She's right.

In fact, nothing in the Constitution explicity gives you a right to hunt.

However their is a right to fight tyranny in the government and that right is in the second amendment.

No it's not.

In fact quite the opposite.

There's nothing in the Constitution that supports armed uprisings.

There's plenty in the Constitution that supports the government's right to squash armed uprisings.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is only valid in Loonyleftyland.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

From the horses ass....

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35CLNIAAEik]RUSH LIMBAUGH THE PHONY SOLDER - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Sallow]

However their is a right to fight tyranny in the government and that right is in the second amendment.

No it's not.

In fact quite the opposite.

There's nothing in the Constitution that supports armed uprisings.

There's plenty in the Constitution that supports the government's right to squash armed uprisings.

There is an oath some of us have taken.
It doesn't expire.

What?

 

[Sallow]

However their is a right to fight tyranny in the government and that right is in the second amendment.

No it's not.

In fact quite the opposite.

There's nothing in the Constitution that supports armed uprisings.

There's plenty in the Constitution that supports the government's right to squash armed uprisings.

Your interpretation of the Constitution is only valid in Loonyleftyland.

Feel free to cite the amendment, clause, letter or whatever, from the Constitution, that supports the opposite.

 

[Sallow]

Gotta love Libs...
They are trying to regulate and control people who already do that themselves.
But it gets a big splash in the media.
The media loves to prop up Obama.
Now everyone in the Democrat party walks away feeling like they fixed this.

Posts like this invite notion that you really don't know what you are talking about..

The OP is describing a "fallacy" of Constitutional Doctrine.

Except..he was shown to be wrong.

So he fell back to another fallacy and again shown to be wrong.

They he fell back to a "private" oath.

Government "regulates" interaction between people.

Left to their own devices, people would murder each other (and often do even with regulation) for extremely silly reasons. Like personal insults.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

No it's not.

In fact quite the opposite.

There's nothing in the Constitution that supports armed uprisings.

There's plenty in the Constitution that supports the government's right to squash armed uprisings.

There is an oath some of us have taken.
It doesn't expire.

What?

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Gotta love Libs...
They are trying to regulate and control people who already do that themselves.

Welllllllllll......except for that, there spellin'-thing......​

She's right.

In fact, nothing in the Constitution explicity gives you a right to hunt.

However their is a right to fight tyranny in the government and that right is in the second amendment.

Stupid fuckin' Teabagger....​

 

[Darkwind]

She's right.

In fact, nothing in the Constitution explicity gives you a right to hunt.

Sure there is.

But you are right about one thing.

There is NO Stipulation at all about the absolute right to own and bear arms for the US citizen.

None at all.

There is no hunting requirement, no self defense requirement, no fighting a corrupt government requirement.

We simply have the right without infringement.

deal with it.

 

[Mad Scientist]

She's right.

In fact, nothing in the Constitution explicity gives you a right to hunt.

This is how the Marxist Obama thinks.

"The Constitution doesn't say what the Gov't can do to you, and we need to address that".

 

[Sallow]

There is an oath some of us have taken.
It doesn't expire.

What?

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Yes.

And check your constitution.

It in no way advocates for armed rebellion.

The Domestic enemies wouldn't be elected officials. They would be rootin tootin yahooes with guns.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Gotta love Libs...
They are trying to regulate and control people who already do that themselves.
But it gets a big splash in the media.
The media loves to prop up Obama.
Now everyone in the Democrat party walks away feeling like they fixed this.

Posts like this invite notion that you really don't know what you are talking about..

The OP is describing a "fallacy" of Constitutional Doctrine.

Except..he was shown to be wrong.

So he fell back to another fallacy and again shown to be wrong.

They he fell back to a "private" oath.

Government "regulates" interaction between people.

Left to their own devices, people would murder each other (and often do even with regulation) for extremely silly reasons. Like personal insults.

We can go back a forth I proved you wrong no I proved you wrong no when you said I was wrong you were wrong.

But I will say you are dead wrong.

 

[Sallow]

She's right.

In fact, nothing in the Constitution explicity gives you a right to hunt.

This is how the Marxist Obama thinks.

"The Constitution doesn't say what the Gov't can do to you, and we need to address that".

Obama isn't marxist.

Link your quote, by the way.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What?

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God."

Yes.

And check your constitution.

It in no way advocates for armed rebellion.

The Domestic enemies wouldn't be elected officials. They would be rootin tootin yahooes with guns.

The government acts from time to time as if they are foreign but it isn't the government would be under the domestic category. The government can be a domestic enemy of the Constitution.