CDZ Is this the way it is or the way that it should be ?

Bingo. Five years in prison for every illegal weapon regardless of why you came in contact with police would cut down on gun crime more than any other single law.

But no, instead we have things like guy gets caught with a bag of weed and a gun. liberals scream "it's just weed" and the guy gets probation.

Stupid.

Red:
Can you please explain how that policy approach should be executed?
Please be sure to explain how to do so without violating one's 4th Amendment rights as well as addressing how the citizenry and your specified policy approach(s) mitigate or do not introduce "states rights" issues of their own and that merely trade one existing such "issue" for a different one.

Blue:
??? Well, if the gun is legally owned, it is "just weed," and it's only that, barring extenuating circumstances, if the "guy" is caught by state law enforcement personnel in a state that hasn't legalized weed sales, use, and/or possession. Now if states pass laws that say one cannot be in proximate possession of weed and guns simultaneously, that's a different matter.
Obviously, the only amendment that matters is the 2nd amendment. What is this 4th amendment you speak of??? /sarcasm


Wrong.....The Bill of Rights needs protection from people like you.....right now the 2nd Amendment is one of the most openly attacked...and just as if not more important than the others...since the others mean nothing if the government chooses to ignore them......

Don't worry.....people like you are also going after the 1st and all the others.......

The 2nd Amendment is meaningless in an era where our government has intercontinental ballistic missiles.....unless you think the ICBMs should be available for public purchase. They are, after all, just inanimate objects, right?

The 2nd Amendment is now purely a relic of the 18th century, used to justify the unrestrained participation in sporting activities.
WRONG.

Yet another typically cogent argument from a gun nut.
 
Bingo. Five years in prison for every illegal weapon regardless of why you came in contact with police would cut down on gun crime more than any other single law.

But no, instead we have things like guy gets caught with a bag of weed and a gun. liberals scream "it's just weed" and the guy gets probation.

Stupid.

Red:
Can you please explain how that policy approach should be executed?
Please be sure to explain how to do so without violating one's 4th Amendment rights as well as addressing how the citizenry and your specified policy approach(s) mitigate or do not introduce "states rights" issues of their own and that merely trade one existing such "issue" for a different one.

Blue:
??? Well, if the gun is legally owned, it is "just weed," and it's only that, barring extenuating circumstances, if the "guy" is caught by state law enforcement personnel in a state that hasn't legalized weed sales, use, and/or possession. Now if states pass laws that say one cannot be in proximate possession of weed and guns simultaneously, that's a different matter.
Obviously, the only amendment that matters is the 2nd amendment. What is this 4th amendment you speak of??? /sarcasm


Wrong.....The Bill of Rights needs protection from people like you.....right now the 2nd Amendment is one of the most openly attacked...and just as if not more important than the others...since the others mean nothing if the government chooses to ignore them......

Don't worry.....people like you are also going after the 1st and all the others.......

The 2nd Amendment is meaningless in an era where our government has intercontinental ballistic missiles.....unless you think the ICBMs should be available for public purchase. They are, after all, just inanimate objects, right?

The 2nd Amendment is now purely a relic of the 18th century, used to justify the unrestrained participation in sporting activities.


Better tell that to the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan....the guys who drove of the most powerful and technologically sophisticated military in the world....with rifles......
 
Bingo. Five years in prison for every illegal weapon regardless of why you came in contact with police would cut down on gun crime more than any other single law.

But no, instead we have things like guy gets caught with a bag of weed and a gun. liberals scream "it's just weed" and the guy gets probation.

Stupid.

Red:
Can you please explain how that policy approach should be executed?
Please be sure to explain how to do so without violating one's 4th Amendment rights as well as addressing how the citizenry and your specified policy approach(s) mitigate or do not introduce "states rights" issues of their own and that merely trade one existing such "issue" for a different one.

Blue:
??? Well, if the gun is legally owned, it is "just weed," and it's only that, barring extenuating circumstances, if the "guy" is caught by state law enforcement personnel in a state that hasn't legalized weed sales, use, and/or possession. Now if states pass laws that say one cannot be in proximate possession of weed and guns simultaneously, that's a different matter.
Obviously, the only amendment that matters is the 2nd amendment. What is this 4th amendment you speak of??? /sarcasm


Wrong.....The Bill of Rights needs protection from people like you.....right now the 2nd Amendment is one of the most openly attacked...and just as if not more important than the others...since the others mean nothing if the government chooses to ignore them......

Don't worry.....people like you are also going after the 1st and all the others.......

The 2nd Amendment is meaningless in an era where our government has intercontinental ballistic missiles.....unless you think the ICBMs should be available for public purchase. They are, after all, just inanimate objects, right?

The 2nd Amendment is now purely a relic of the 18th century, used to justify the unrestrained participation in sporting activities.
In the context that pertains to the right to bear arms in order to contravene governmental tyranny, most certainly.
 
Bingo. Five years in prison for every illegal weapon regardless of why you came in contact with police would cut down on gun crime more than any other single law.

But no, instead we have things like guy gets caught with a bag of weed and a gun. liberals scream "it's just weed" and the guy gets probation.

Stupid.

Red:
Can you please explain how that policy approach should be executed?
Please be sure to explain how to do so without violating one's 4th Amendment rights as well as addressing how the citizenry and your specified policy approach(s) mitigate or do not introduce "states rights" issues of their own and that merely trade one existing such "issue" for a different one.

Blue:
??? Well, if the gun is legally owned, it is "just weed," and it's only that, barring extenuating circumstances, if the "guy" is caught by state law enforcement personnel in a state that hasn't legalized weed sales, use, and/or possession. Now if states pass laws that say one cannot be in proximate possession of weed and guns simultaneously, that's a different matter.
Obviously, the only amendment that matters is the 2nd amendment. What is this 4th amendment you speak of??? /sarcasm


Wrong.....The Bill of Rights needs protection from people like you.....right now the 2nd Amendment is one of the most openly attacked...and just as if not more important than the others...since the others mean nothing if the government chooses to ignore them......

Don't worry.....people like you are also going after the 1st and all the others.......

The 2nd Amendment is meaningless in an era where our government has intercontinental ballistic missiles.....unless you think the ICBMs should be available for public purchase. They are, after all, just inanimate objects, right?

The 2nd Amendment is now purely a relic of the 18th century, used to justify the unrestrained participation in sporting activities.


Better tell that to the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan....the guys who drove of the most powerful and technologically sophisticated military in the world....with rifles......

I missed where the terrorists "drove of[sic] the most powerful and technologically sophisticated military in the world .....with rifles."

Can you recap that? Are you talking about the U.S.? Because we weren't "driven of[sic]". We quit.
 
Red:
Can you please explain how that policy approach should be executed?
Please be sure to explain how to do so without violating one's 4th Amendment rights as well as addressing how the citizenry and your specified policy approach(s) mitigate or do not introduce "states rights" issues of their own and that merely trade one existing such "issue" for a different one.

Blue:
??? Well, if the gun is legally owned, it is "just weed," and it's only that, barring extenuating circumstances, if the "guy" is caught by state law enforcement personnel in a state that hasn't legalized weed sales, use, and/or possession. Now if states pass laws that say one cannot be in proximate possession of weed and guns simultaneously, that's a different matter.
Obviously, the only amendment that matters is the 2nd amendment. What is this 4th amendment you speak of??? /sarcasm


Wrong.....The Bill of Rights needs protection from people like you.....right now the 2nd Amendment is one of the most openly attacked...and just as if not more important than the others...since the others mean nothing if the government chooses to ignore them......

Don't worry.....people like you are also going after the 1st and all the others.......

The 2nd Amendment is meaningless in an era where our government has intercontinental ballistic missiles.....unless you think the ICBMs should be available for public purchase. They are, after all, just inanimate objects, right?

The 2nd Amendment is now purely a relic of the 18th century, used to justify the unrestrained participation in sporting activities.


Better tell that to the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan....the guys who drove of the most powerful and technologically sophisticated military in the world....with rifles......

I missed where the terrorists "drove of[sic] the most powerful and technologically sophisticated military in the world .....with rifles."

Can you recap that? Are you talking about the U.S.? Because we weren't "driven of[sic]". We quit.

We quit cuz we were driven off.

And , if I read what you wrote correctly, you essentially said "having your guns is stupid b/c when the time comes, the USG will just nuke you anyway"
 
Red:
Can you please explain how that policy approach should be executed?
Please be sure to explain how to do so without violating one's 4th Amendment rights as well as addressing how the citizenry and your specified policy approach(s) mitigate or do not introduce "states rights" issues of their own and that merely trade one existing such "issue" for a different one.

Blue:
??? Well, if the gun is legally owned, it is "just weed," and it's only that, barring extenuating circumstances, if the "guy" is caught by state law enforcement personnel in a state that hasn't legalized weed sales, use, and/or possession. Now if states pass laws that say one cannot be in proximate possession of weed and guns simultaneously, that's a different matter.
Obviously, the only amendment that matters is the 2nd amendment. What is this 4th amendment you speak of??? /sarcasm


Wrong.....The Bill of Rights needs protection from people like you.....right now the 2nd Amendment is one of the most openly attacked...and just as if not more important than the others...since the others mean nothing if the government chooses to ignore them......

Don't worry.....people like you are also going after the 1st and all the others.......

The 2nd Amendment is meaningless in an era where our government has intercontinental ballistic missiles.....unless you think the ICBMs should be available for public purchase. They are, after all, just inanimate objects, right?

The 2nd Amendment is now purely a relic of the 18th century, used to justify the unrestrained participation in sporting activities.


Better tell that to the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan....the guys who drove of the most powerful and technologically sophisticated military in the world....with rifles......

I missed where the terrorists "drove of[sic] the most powerful and technologically sophisticated military in the world .....with rifles."

Can you recap that? Are you talking about the U.S.? Because we weren't "driven of[sic]". We quit.


Yeah....we quit...because they kept killing our guys and we got tired of it.....they drove us off with rifles..........if they didn't have those rifles we wouldn't have left....
 
The 2nd Amendment is meaningless in an era where our government has intercontinental ballistic missiles.....unless you think the ICBMs should be available for public purchase. They are, after all, just inanimate objects, right?

The 2nd Amendment is now purely a relic of the 18th century, used to justify the unrestrained participation in sporting activities.
It's pure poppycock for anti-gun LWers to bring up the "nuclear option" whenever they want to ban guns.

First, we lost Vietnam against a force of people who mostly operated with punji sticks and bolt action rifles. No nukes were used, but we did do a lot of carpet bombing and employed the use of Agent Orange.

Second, if nukes are the answer, why didn't we nuke Afghanistan or Iraq? Why were the insurgents so effective with sniper attacks and IEDs?

Third, only a LW Washington insider (Hillary?) would suggest nuking their own people and territory in order to put down an insurrection.
 
Obviously, the only amendment that matters is the 2nd amendment. What is this 4th amendment you speak of??? /sarcasm


Wrong.....The Bill of Rights needs protection from people like you.....right now the 2nd Amendment is one of the most openly attacked...and just as if not more important than the others...since the others mean nothing if the government chooses to ignore them......

Don't worry.....people like you are also going after the 1st and all the others.......

The 2nd Amendment is meaningless in an era where our government has intercontinental ballistic missiles.....unless you think the ICBMs should be available for public purchase. They are, after all, just inanimate objects, right?

The 2nd Amendment is now purely a relic of the 18th century, used to justify the unrestrained participation in sporting activities.


Better tell that to the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan....the guys who drove of the most powerful and technologically sophisticated military in the world....with rifles......

I missed where the terrorists "drove of[sic] the most powerful and technologically sophisticated military in the world .....with rifles."

Can you recap that? Are you talking about the U.S.? Because we weren't "driven of[sic]". We quit.

We quit cuz we were driven off.

And , if I read what you wrote correctly, you essentially said "having your guns is stupid b/c when the time comes, the USG will just nuke you anyway"

That is definitely not what he was implying. That is, clearly, what you chose to infer from it in order to, in your mind, justify your reductio ad absurdum response.
 
Wrong.....The Bill of Rights needs protection from people like you.....right now the 2nd Amendment is one of the most openly attacked...and just as if not more important than the others...since the others mean nothing if the government chooses to ignore them......

Don't worry.....people like you are also going after the 1st and all the others.......

The 2nd Amendment is meaningless in an era where our government has intercontinental ballistic missiles.....unless you think the ICBMs should be available for public purchase. They are, after all, just inanimate objects, right?

The 2nd Amendment is now purely a relic of the 18th century, used to justify the unrestrained participation in sporting activities.


Better tell that to the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan....the guys who drove of the most powerful and technologically sophisticated military in the world....with rifles......

I missed where the terrorists "drove of[sic] the most powerful and technologically sophisticated military in the world .....with rifles."

Can you recap that? Are you talking about the U.S.? Because we weren't "driven of[sic]". We quit.

We quit cuz we were driven off.

And , if I read what you wrote correctly, you essentially said "having your guns is stupid b/c when the time comes, the USG will just nuke you anyway"

That is definitely not what he was implying. That is, clearly, what you chose to infer from it in order to, in your mind, justify your reductio ad absurdum response.


OF COURSE he wasn't implying that, he outright stated it.

His belief is that the 2nd Amendment in terms of fighting the government is outdated simply b/c the government has weapons that could obliterate us long before we could use said firearms to defend ourselves.
 
The 2nd Amendment is meaningless in an era where our government has intercontinental ballistic missiles.....unless you think the ICBMs should be available for public purchase. They are, after all, just inanimate objects, right?

The 2nd Amendment is now purely a relic of the 18th century, used to justify the unrestrained participation in sporting activities.


Better tell that to the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan....the guys who drove of the most powerful and technologically sophisticated military in the world....with rifles......

I missed where the terrorists "drove of[sic] the most powerful and technologically sophisticated military in the world .....with rifles."

Can you recap that? Are you talking about the U.S.? Because we weren't "driven of[sic]". We quit.

We quit cuz we were driven off.

And , if I read what you wrote correctly, you essentially said "having your guns is stupid b/c when the time comes, the USG will just nuke you anyway"

That is definitely not what he was implying. That is, clearly, what you chose to infer from it in order to, in your mind, justify your reductio ad absurdum response.


OF COURSE he wasn't implying that, he outright stated it.

His belief is that the 2nd Amendment in terms of fighting the government is outdated simply b/c the government has weapons that could obliterate us long before we could use said firearms to defend ourselves.
. The way everything is being consolidated these days, it isn't hard to understand why the government wants the guns too. Everything is connected in one way or another anymore. Kind of weird how we went from being a peaceful Christ loving, Christmas loving, Nativity Scene, Religious loving American people once upon a time, and not so long ago, to a bunch of flippin weirdo's from hell these days. Find out who the culprits are, and begin a serious political campaign against them is what I say.
 
The way everything is being consolidated these days, it isn't hard to understand why the government wants the guns too. Everything is connected in one way or another anymore. Kind of weird how we went from being a peaceful Christ loving, Christmas loving, Nativity Scene, Religious loving American people once upon a time, and not so long ago, to a bunch of flippin weirdo's from hell these days. Find out who the culprits are, and begin a serious political campaign against them is what I say.

They own the politics, even call it political correctness. You trade one thing for another and that's what you get.

Liberty/freedom is not without a cost. It comes with the acceptance that some people will abuse their liberties and do terrible things to people. Still, to me it is like the old saying about love ~ "Better to have loved and lost than to never have loved at all". Sometimes it is better to endure the misery and tragedy associated with our freedoms, than to simply choose to have no freedom at all.
 
Obviously, the only amendment that matters is the 2nd amendment. What is this 4th amendment you speak of??? /sarcasm


Wrong.....The Bill of Rights needs protection from people like you.....right now the 2nd Amendment is one of the most openly attacked...and just as if not more important than the others...since the others mean nothing if the government chooses to ignore them......

Don't worry.....people like you are also going after the 1st and all the others.......

The 2nd Amendment is meaningless in an era where our government has intercontinental ballistic missiles.....unless you think the ICBMs should be available for public purchase. They are, after all, just inanimate objects, right?

The 2nd Amendment is now purely a relic of the 18th century, used to justify the unrestrained participation in sporting activities.


Better tell that to the terrorists in Iraq and Afghanistan....the guys who drove of the most powerful and technologically sophisticated military in the world....with rifles......

I missed where the terrorists "drove of[sic] the most powerful and technologically sophisticated military in the world .....with rifles."

Can you recap that? Are you talking about the U.S.? Because we weren't "driven of[sic]". We quit.


Yeah....we quit...because they kept killing our guys and we got tired of it.....they drove us off with rifles..........if they didn't have those rifles we wouldn't have left....
. We weren't scared of their rifles, we just got tired of being stabbed in the back by a bunch of low life scum who would smile in your face, and then shoot you while you were trying to train them to defend themselves.
 

Forum List

Back
Top