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.
Firearms have nothing to do with itPeople kill people not firearmsThis has been the universal result every time conceal carry is approved...
Crime plummets wherever citizens are permitted to carry firearms.Snitsar added that she might drop the class but still wondered if the professor “is aware crime on campus is down in the wake of the [campus carry] policy?”
Guns allowed on campus leads prof to cancel office hours, declare ‘I no longer feel safe’: student
Your article has nothing to do with showing crime on campus is down. No comprehensive study has ever concluded that more or less guns has anything to do with the increase or the decrease of gun crimes. But there was one historical time when life taught a very valuable lesson where almost everyone was armed on the streets and this is why cities and towns passed laws forbidding open carry and automatic hanging offense for using holdout weapons. Fewer guns has no affect at all. More guns within reason has no affect either. More Guns outside of reason will increase the murder rate. Learn from History or be doomed to repeat it.
People with firearms kill people.
Firearm ownership as none of the federal governments business… End of story
This country is not armed well enoughFirearms have nothing to do with itPeople kill people not firearmsThis has been the universal result every time conceal carry is approved...
Crime plummets wherever citizens are permitted to carry firearms.
Guns allowed on campus leads prof to cancel office hours, declare ‘I no longer feel safe’: student
Your article has nothing to do with showing crime on campus is down. No comprehensive study has ever concluded that more or less guns has anything to do with the increase or the decrease of gun crimes. But there was one historical time when life taught a very valuable lesson where almost everyone was armed on the streets and this is why cities and towns passed laws forbidding open carry and automatic hanging offense for using holdout weapons. Fewer guns has no affect at all. More guns within reason has no affect either. More Guns outside of reason will increase the murder rate. Learn from History or be doomed to repeat it.
People with firearms kill people.
And that is what we have been trying to tell you. Firearms have nothing to do with anything at all. That is until there are just too many of them and the streets are saturated. Otherwise, the battle cry of "More Guns" is just silly.
The last thing we have to worry about is firearmsFirearm ownership as none of the federal governments business… End of story
Unless it becomes a public safety issue. And then it falls under the 1st amendment. If the guns are denying the rights under the 1st amendment then there must be changes made. And not to the first amendment rights.
This country is not armed well enoughFirearms have nothing to do with itPeople kill people not firearmsYour article has nothing to do with showing crime on campus is down. No comprehensive study has ever concluded that more or less guns has anything to do with the increase or the decrease of gun crimes. But there was one historical time when life taught a very valuable lesson where almost everyone was armed on the streets and this is why cities and towns passed laws forbidding open carry and automatic hanging offense for using holdout weapons. Fewer guns has no affect at all. More guns within reason has no affect either. More Guns outside of reason will increase the murder rate. Learn from History or be doomed to repeat it.
People with firearms kill people.
And that is what we have been trying to tell you. Firearms have nothing to do with anything at all. That is until there are just too many of them and the streets are saturated. Otherwise, the battle cry of "More Guns" is just silly.
The last thing we have to worry about is firearmsFirearm ownership as none of the federal governments business… End of story
Unless it becomes a public safety issue. And then it falls under the 1st amendment. If the guns are denying the rights under the 1st amendment then there must be changes made. And not to the first amendment rights.
I said our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State.each amendment is separate.It orders the meaning of the words. The first clause expresses the context. It is not about individual liberty or natural rights.See, that’s your problem. You think words order other words to do something. The constitution orders the federal government, not the words ordering words. Words don’t do anything but convey a message. Words can’t tell other words what to do.
The constitution direct the federal government and the states. Ultimately, it orders people, individuals, how to act or behave, for the benefit of individuals.
Did we forget the purpose of society?
You claim the amendments don't protect individual rights, yet won't deal with how the first obviously protects your rights as an individual to speak without being part of a regulated group.
There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment; they are plural and collective.
No, you said none of the amendments preserve individual rights.
LolThis country is not armed well enoughFirearms have nothing to do with itPeople kill people not firearms
People with firearms kill people.
And that is what we have been trying to tell you. Firearms have nothing to do with anything at all. That is until there are just too many of them and the streets are saturated. Otherwise, the battle cry of "More Guns" is just silly.
The United States is armed just fine.. Not one single other country can even successfully overthrow the United States. And that would be even if we didn't use even one single Federal Troop inside the Borders. There is no doubt to that statement. There isn't a commie under ever bed. There isn't a bunch of commies that have completely taken over the Democratic Party. But there is an enemy within called Hate. And you seem to spread that hate as much as possible. You are the enemy of my Country. And my Oath I took long ago that I am still bound to tells me that you shall not succeed.
LolThe last thing we have to worry about is firearmsFirearm ownership as none of the federal governments business… End of story
Unless it becomes a public safety issue. And then it falls under the 1st amendment. If the guns are denying the rights under the 1st amendment then there must be changes made. And not to the first amendment rights.
I don't worry about firearms. I do worry about fruitcakes that spread hate using firearms as the vessel. You are the enemy.
lol. It is about the security of a free State; it Says so in the first clause not the second clause.It is about the limited power of the federal government.I said our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State.each amendment is separate.It orders the meaning of the words. The first clause expresses the context. It is not about individual liberty or natural rights.
You claim the amendments don't protect individual rights, yet won't deal with how the first obviously protects your rights as an individual to speak without being part of a regulated group.
There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment; they are plural and collective.
No, you said none of the amendments preserve individual rights.
Stop making shit up, dumbass.
anybody can talk, right winger; even little girls can gossip about anything.There are no collective rights. That is pure dumbassery. Only commie idiots believe in the illogical concept of collective rights.If you knew anything about our Second Amendment, you would know what and where it should apply.Makes no sense.Our Second Amendment covers the security of a free State; there is no excuse for not having an army group in reserve.
What does that have to do with the right of the people?
the whole and entire concept of natural rights, is not one of them.
A collective right is exercised by no one, just like collective property is enjoyed or used by no one.
Collectivism is a lie. It is a scam to defraud individuals of liberty and property.
Who has the right? The people, but not the person.
Who owns the property? The people, but not the person.
Who gets to eat the bread owned by the people? Not you.
Collectivists are murdering thieves who deserve death.
I am claiming our Second Article of Amendment is about the security of a free State.I said our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State.each amendment is separate.It orders the meaning of the words. The first clause expresses the context. It is not about individual liberty or natural rights.
You claim the amendments don't protect individual rights, yet won't deal with how the first obviously protects your rights as an individual to speak without being part of a regulated group.
There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment; they are plural and collective.
No, you said none of the amendments preserve individual rights.
Yes, repeatedly. You also said none of the amendments protected individual liberties and I'm holding you to that.
I am claiming our Second Article of Amendment is about the security of a free State.I said our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State.each amendment is separate.You claim the amendments don't protect individual rights, yet won't deal with how the first obviously protects your rights as an individual to speak without being part of a regulated group.
There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment; they are plural and collective.
No, you said none of the amendments preserve individual rights.
Yes, repeatedly. You also said none of the amendments protected individual liberties and I'm holding you to that.
can you cite where in our Constitution, it claims that.I am claiming our Second Article of Amendment is about the security of a free State.I said our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State.each amendment is separate.
There are no individual rights in our Second Amendment; they are plural and collective.
No, you said none of the amendments preserve individual rights.
Yes, repeatedly. You also said none of the amendments protected individual liberties and I'm holding you to that.
I know you don't want to talk about the other amendments because you know that once you admit they protect individual rights your pet position will be significantly weakened, but you need to. Be an adult and address what you said.
Tell us how the first amendment only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group. Don't meander off again to the second, and don't give in to your desire to belittle women.
can you cite where in our Constitution, it claims that.I am claiming our Second Article of Amendment is about the security of a free State.I said our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State.No, you said none of the amendments preserve individual rights.
Yes, repeatedly. You also said none of the amendments protected individual liberties and I'm holding you to that.
I know you don't want to talk about the other amendments because you know that once you admit they protect individual rights your pet position will be significantly weakened, but you need to. Be an adult and address what you said.
Tell us how the first amendment only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group. Don't meander off again to the second, and don't give in to your desire to belittle women.
stop with your spam. we are discussing our Second Amendment, not Your diversions.can you cite where in our Constitution, it claims that.I am claiming our Second Article of Amendment is about the security of a free State.I said our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State.
Yes, repeatedly. You also said none of the amendments protected individual liberties and I'm holding you to that.
I know you don't want to talk about the other amendments because you know that once you admit they protect individual rights your pet position will be significantly weakened, but you need to. Be an adult and address what you said.
Tell us how the first amendment only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group. Don't meander off again to the second, and don't give in to your desire to belittle women.
You said it. You said none of the amendments protect individual rights. Now explain how the first only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group.
stop with your spam. we are discussing our Second Amendment, not Your diversions.can you cite where in our Constitution, it claims that.I am claiming our Second Article of Amendment is about the security of a free State.Yes, repeatedly. You also said none of the amendments protected individual liberties and I'm holding you to that.
I know you don't want to talk about the other amendments because you know that once you admit they protect individual rights your pet position will be significantly weakened, but you need to. Be an adult and address what you said.
Tell us how the first amendment only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group. Don't meander off again to the second, and don't give in to your desire to belittle women.
You said it. You said none of the amendments protect individual rights. Now explain how the first only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group.
Judicial activism? We have a Ninth Amendment. Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State; This I know, because it says so, in the First clause not the Second clause.stop with your spam. we are discussing our Second Amendment, not Your diversions.can you cite where in our Constitution, it claims that.I am claiming our Second Article of Amendment is about the security of a free State.
I know you don't want to talk about the other amendments because you know that once you admit they protect individual rights your pet position will be significantly weakened, but you need to. Be an adult and address what you said.
Tell us how the first amendment only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group. Don't meander off again to the second, and don't give in to your desire to belittle women.
You said it. You said none of the amendments protect individual rights. Now explain how the first only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group.
Does the SC agree with you?
Judicial activism? We have a Ninth Amendment. Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State; This I know, because it says so, in the First clause not the Second clause.stop with your spam. we are discussing our Second Amendment, not Your diversions.can you cite where in our Constitution, it claims that.I know you don't want to talk about the other amendments because you know that once you admit they protect individual rights your pet position will be significantly weakened, but you need to. Be an adult and address what you said.
Tell us how the first amendment only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group. Don't meander off again to the second, and don't give in to your desire to belittle women.
You said it. You said none of the amendments protect individual rights. Now explain how the first only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group.
Does the SC agree with you?
No, through judicial activism, not the law.Judicial activism? We have a Ninth Amendment. Our Second Amendment is about the security of a free State; This I know, because it says so, in the First clause not the Second clause.stop with your spam. we are discussing our Second Amendment, not Your diversions.can you cite where in our Constitution, it claims that.
You said it. You said none of the amendments protect individual rights. Now explain how the first only protects you if you are a member of a regulated group.
Does the SC agree with you?
You didn't answer the question.
Does the SC agree with you.
