Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[Jack4jill]

Not no one, just very few, like me.

Well, thankfully, you are a nobody.

And just who are you?

Again, think a bit before posting.

I'm a person who believes in constitutional rights of the American people.

So do I, in general, but that still makes you a nobody.

Nope, you do not. You want to take away one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, the right to defend ourselves from invaders or those who would do us harm.

I want to take away guns. That's all. There are plenty of non-lethal methods to defend yourself.

A gun being self defense is a lie.

 

[ChrisL]

Well, thankfully, you are a nobody.

And just who are you?

Again, think a bit before posting.

I'm a person who believes in constitutional rights of the American people.

So do I, in general, but that still makes you a nobody.

Nope, you do not. You want to take away one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, the right to defend ourselves from invaders or those who would do us harm.

I want to take away guns. That's all. There are plenty of non-lethal methods to defend yourself.

A gun being self defense is a lie.

Never going to happen here in America. Guns exist and they aren't going to just disappear.

 

[Jack4jill]

Dummy is not a name in this case. It is your mental ability, a highly limited one.

Seems I'm the one capable of rational and reasonable discussion. You are the one getting all . . . crazy. I can see why you wouldn't want others to own guns considering your own poor self control. Lol.

Guns are mostly unnecessary now. Does not wanting people to have biological weapons at home make me crazy? Am I a Nazi for wanting a ban on personal nuclear weapons?

Next time, try to think a little.

You must be posing because your silly and extreme arguments are doing little to back your position. Lol.

The extreme argument is the one that thinks only Nazis want to control weapons. I don't see you starting the Nationsl Pipe Bomb Association, right?

You are ridiculous. Lol.

So controlling bombs is okay but not guns? Do we use bombs in war? Do we use guns?

Both are weapons but why is it only okay to control one, not the other?

 

[Camp]

I have been backpacking in National Parks and Forest for decades. Until Obama signed a law allowing for firearms in the National Parks and Forest, it was forbidden. People hiking and backpacking or camping in those places were not allowed to have firearms. It was a Federal offense. Now it isn't. Now it is OK. So, Obama has supported gun carry rights in America. You can go camping and carry your weapons of choice.
So, there is an example of a pro-gun law Obama promoted. Does anyone have a good example of an anti-gun law he promoted or signed into law that would take away any of my gun rights?

 

[Jack4jill]

And just who are you?

Again, think a bit before posting.

I'm a person who believes in constitutional rights of the American people.

So do I, in general, but that still makes you a nobody.

Nope, you do not. You want to take away one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, the right to defend ourselves from invaders or those who would do us harm.

I want to take away guns. That's all. There are plenty of non-lethal methods to defend yourself.

A gun being self defense is a lie.

Never going to happen here in America. Guns exist and they aren't going to just disappear.

Guns will be a thing of the past one day, since they already mostly are.

 

[BluesLegend]

Its front page news today, a 25 year old drug addict scumbag looking for a drug fix invades an elderly couple's home, stabs gramps and beats him with a crow bar so the 80 year old great grandmother shoots the worthless scum 3 times in the chest BOOM DEAD!!

By the way where are the drugs coming from? Yes from Mexico via illegals.

 

[ChrisL]

Its front page news today, a 25 year old drug addict scumbag looking for a drug fix invades an elderly couple's home, stabs gramps and beats him with a crow bar so the 80 year old great grandmother shoots the worthless scum 3 times in the chest BOOM DEAD!!

By the way where are the drugs coming from? Yes from Mexico via illegals.

There are WAY too many incidents like this, where criminals invade a home and beat people to death. Sad.

 

[BluesLegend]

Its front page news today, a 25 year old drug addict scumbag looking for a drug fix invades an elderly couple's home, stabs gramps and beats him with a crow bar so the 80 year old great grandmother shoots the worthless scum 3 times in the chest BOOM DEAD!!

By the way where are the drugs coming from? Yes from Mexico via illegals.

There are WAY too many incidents like this, where criminals invade a home and beat people to death. Sad.

In my area the Pacific NW Mexican gangs have taken over the drug trade and pour METH into our states via illegal couriers, the drug just destroys people. Naturally I want to hurl when these filth liberal traitors yap about sanctuary cities and side with illegals. These meth dealing illegals bring their entire families up here, National Geographic found a bunch of them not 12 miles from my house.

Its long overdue that we cleaned up this mess, illegals go home. Washington establishment YOUR FIRED here's your pink slip we'll be in touch after the investigations to let you know if you are going to prison or not.

 

[P@triot]

rott, losing the same argument on two threads

candy....upset she's been defeated on her same insane argument in two different threads. She wants to disarm women so that they are vulnerable to attacks

 

[P@triot]

No, they didn't. The sentence that is the 2nd Amendment begins with the reason why citizens have a right to keep and bear arms. It is plain language. The concept and ruling that the Amendment included the individual rights are recent and a major change from past interpretations. It was narrowly passed by the Robert's court with an opinion written by Justice Scalia.
That decision can be turned any time and will rely on future Justice's agreeing with the Scalia opinion. That is a major reason the replacement of Scalia is being denied.

The fact that you even think that the Supreme Court has the power to decide what the Constitution says and to create or alter law from the bench just shows how much you don't know about the U.S. Constitution and the U.S. government.

 

[P@triot]

I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.

In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.

 

[Jack4jill]

I don't call for more laws, I call for fewer guns.

In other words, you call for more mass murder. Because everywhere guns are banned, we see horrific mass murders. And everywhere we see an abundance of guns, we see nothing but peace and civility.

Japan, few guns and very peaceful. Iraq, many guns and no peace.

Try again, Puddles.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

rott, losing the same argument on two threads

candy....upset she's been defeated on her same insane argument in two different threads. She wants to disarm women so that they are vulnerable to attacks

Democrats want to disarm everybody so they are vulnerable to attacks.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

Are you sure? I thought the 2nd Amendment was a single sentence that began with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...". What 2nd Amendment are you using?

I am sure. It clearly states "the right of the people". The right belongs to the people. There is simply no denying it.

The right of the people is clearly defined as for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated Militia. That is why the Amendment starts out with the purpose of the Amendment. You do not understand the meaning of Militia and how the SCOTUS has judged and confirmed its meaning since the inception of the United States.

Every person 17 to 45 is a member of the militia there fore EVERY person 17 to 45 has the right to own possess and bear arms thanks for playing.

But there is no “right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” ibid

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I'm a person who believes in constitutional rights of the American people.

So do I, in general, but that still makes you a nobody.

Nope, you do not. You want to take away one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, the right to defend ourselves from invaders or those who would do us harm.

I want to take away guns. That's all. There are plenty of non-lethal methods to defend yourself.

A gun being self defense is a lie.

Never going to happen here in America. Guns exist and they aren't going to just disappear.

Guns will be a thing of the past one day, since they already mostly are.

Really? What country do you live in?

 

[NYcarbineer]

They ignore or do not know the meaning of the term "well regulated Militia". I doubt they know the difference between "keep" and "bear".

Except that it doesn't say "well regulated militia" junior. It says "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people junior.

Are you sure? I thought the 2nd Amendment was a single sentence that began with "A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State...". What 2nd Amendment are you using?

I am sure. It clearly states "the right of the people". The right belongs to the people. There is simply no denying it.

The right of the people is clearly defined as for the purpose of maintaining a well regulated Militia. That is why the Amendment starts out with the purpose of the Amendment. You do not understand the meaning of Militia and how the SCOTUS has judged and confirmed its meaning since the inception of the United States.

Nope...been over and over this......the Founders knew exactly who they meant when the right was defined for the People, and not a militia.........it isn't the right of the militia to keep and bear arms they specifically said the right of the people.....

Without a Supreme Court to be able to interpret it that way, you'd be fucked.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

I have been backpacking in National Parks and Forest for decades. Until Obama signed a law allowing for firearms in the National Parks and Forest, it was forbidden. People hiking and backpacking or camping in those places were not allowed to have firearms. It was a Federal offense. Now it isn't. Now it is OK. So, Obama has supported gun carry rights in America. You can go camping and carry your weapons of choice.
So, there is an example of a pro-gun law Obama promoted. Does anyone have a good example of an anti-gun law he promoted or signed into law that would take away any of my gun rights?

He doesn't have the ability to thanks to our Constitution. That may change if people are stupid enough to elect Hilarious. If she is in charge of appointing judges to the SC, we are all screwed.

 

[Jack4jill]

So do I, in general, but that still makes you a nobody.

Nope, you do not. You want to take away one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, the right to defend ourselves from invaders or those who would do us harm.

I want to take away guns. That's all. There are plenty of non-lethal methods to defend yourself.

A gun being self defense is a lie.

Never going to happen here in America. Guns exist and they aren't going to just disappear.

Guns will be a thing of the past one day, since they already mostly are.

Really? What country do you live in?

Country? How about year? I live in 2016, not 1816.

 

[ChrisL]

Seems I'm the one capable of rational and reasonable discussion. You are the one getting all . . . crazy. I can see why you wouldn't want others to own guns considering your own poor self control. Lol.

Guns are mostly unnecessary now. Does not wanting people to have biological weapons at home make me crazy? Am I a Nazi for wanting a ban on personal nuclear weapons?

Next time, try to think a little.

You must be posing because your silly and extreme arguments are doing little to back your position. Lol.

The extreme argument is the one that thinks only Nazis want to control weapons. I don't see you starting the Nationsl Pipe Bomb Association, right?

You are ridiculous. Lol.

So controlling bombs is okay but not guns? Do we use bombs in war? Do we use guns?

Both are weapons but why is it only okay to control one, not the other?

Criminals in places like Iraq do in fact use bombs. If you take away one weapon, they will use another and perhaps more destructive weapon in it's place. Besides the fact that guns are never going to go away. They exist . . . period. If you "ban" them, you are just pushing that industry into the black market where there is no way to trace or "control" anything.

 

[ChrisL]

Nope, you do not. You want to take away one of our constitutionally guaranteed rights, the right to defend ourselves from invaders or those who would do us harm.

I want to take away guns. That's all. There are plenty of non-lethal methods to defend yourself.

A gun being self defense is a lie.

Never going to happen here in America. Guns exist and they aren't going to just disappear.

Guns will be a thing of the past one day, since they already mostly are.

Really? What country do you live in?

Country? How about year? I live in 2016, not 1816.

So do I and we have some really nice guns available.