The downside of carrying a firearm...

[Spiderman]

Militia?

A carry permit has nothing to do with militia.

Every person has the right to defend themselves. A firearm is the most effective tool for that purpose.

It's a concept that even a simpleton like you should be able to understand.

 

[jon_berzerk]

not a chance of it

 

[protectionist]

The 2nd amendment was about protecting Americans from redcoats and indians. Since neither is now a threat, the 2nd amendment is now obsolete.

As if redcoats and Indians were all we might have to defend ourselves from, right ? What a stupid post.

At the time, yes. So tell me Einstein, what are you needing to protect yourself from these days with a militia?

There's lots we need to protect ourselves from with and without a militia. Common street criminals, goofball kids who never got taught that attacking someone is a crime, Muslim jihadist lunatics, occasionally dangerous animals, and half the countries in the world who would overthrow us if they could.

What's the matter you couldn't figure this out, without a tutor ?

 

[Bumberclyde]

As if redcoats and Indians were all we might have to defend ourselves from, right ? What a stupid post.

At the time, yes. So tell me Einstein, what are you needing to protect yourself from these days with a militia?

There's lots we need to protect ourselves from with and without a militia. Common street criminals, goofball kids who never got taught that attacking someone is a crime, Muslim jihadist lunatics, occasionally dangerous animals, and half the countries in the world who would overthrow us if they could.

What's the matter you couldn't figure this out, without a tutor ?

So you admit that you no longer need a well-regulated militia? If you think you still need one, then, for what purpose?

There, is that simple enough for you? Or should I dumb down my questions even more?

 

[Quantum Windbag]

At the time, yes. So tell me Einstein, what are you needing to protect yourself from these days with a militia?

There's lots we need to protect ourselves from with and without a militia. Common street criminals, goofball kids who never got taught that attacking someone is a crime, Muslim jihadist lunatics, occasionally dangerous animals, and half the countries in the world who would overthrow us if they could.

What's the matter you couldn't figure this out, without a tutor ?

So you admit that you no longer need a well-regulated militia? If you think you still need one, then, for what purpose?

There, is that simple enough for you? Or should I dumb down my questions even more?

Federal law mandates a militia, end of your attempt to argue against guns because the militia no longer exists.

 

[hunarcy]

There's lots we need to protect ourselves from with and without a militia. Common street criminals, goofball kids who never got taught that attacking someone is a crime, Muslim jihadist lunatics, occasionally dangerous animals, and half the countries in the world who would overthrow us if they could.

What's the matter you couldn't figure this out, without a tutor ?

So you admit that you no longer need a well-regulated militia? If you think you still need one, then, for what purpose?

There, is that simple enough for you? Or should I dumb down my questions even more?

Federal law mandates a militia, end of your attempt to argue against guns because the militia no longer exists.

That ignorant troll not only can't make a real argument, it doesn't even know what "well regulated" means. And, the issue isn't whether we need a well regulated militia, it's that we have it and it is the general population.

 

[PredFan]

There is no downside to carrying a firearm.

 

[9thIDdoc]

At the time, yes. So tell me Einstein, what are you needing to protect yourself from these days with a militia?

There's lots we need to protect ourselves from with and without a militia. Common street criminals, goofball kids who never got taught that attacking someone is a crime, Muslim jihadist lunatics, occasionally dangerous animals, and half the countries in the world who would overthrow us if they could.

What's the matter you couldn't figure this out, without a tutor ?

So you admit that you no longer need a well-regulated militia? If you think you still need one, then, for what purpose?

There, is that simple enough for you? Or should I dumb down my questions even more?

Actually there are many militias around most just don't advertise for obvious reasons.
But that is entirely beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms is an individual one and has been ruled so by SCUS. "Need" is also beside the point because individual rights exist without any necessity to prove "need". Are we required to prove we need to speak our mind (free speech)? Should I be disallowed the ownership of a fire extinguisher when I have no fire to extinguish or tire tools because I do not have a flat tire? I don't think so.

 

[hunarcy]

Actually there are many militias around most just don't advertise for obvious reasons.
But that is entirely beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms is an individual one and has been ruled so by SCUS. "Need" is also beside the point because individual rights exist without any necessity to prove "need". Are we required to prove we need to speak our mind (free speech)? Should I be disallowed the ownership of a fire extinguisher when I have no fire to extinguish or tire tools because I do not have a flat tire? I don't think so.

Well said and exactly right!

 

[Spoonman]

The 2nd amendment was about protecting Americans from redcoats and indians. Since neither is now a threat, the 2nd amendment is now obsolete.

As if redcoats and Indians were all we might have to defend ourselves from, right ? What a stupid post.

At the time, yes. So tell me Einstein, what are you needing to protect yourself from these days with a militia?

if you actually had a clue what you were talking about, weren't blindly pushing an agenda and bothered to find out what the real intent of the militia described in the 2nd amendment was really for, you will realize that militia is needed now more than any time in our history.

 

[Bumberclyde]

As if redcoats and Indians were all we might have to defend ourselves from, right ? What a stupid post.

At the time, yes. So tell me Einstein, what are you needing to protect yourself from these days with a militia?

if you actually had a clue what you were talking about, weren't blindly pushing an agenda and bothered to find out what the real intent of the militia described in the 2nd amendment was really for, you will realize that militia is needed now more than any time in our history.

Why? I don't even see a "well-regulated militia" between civilian gun owners these days.

 

[JimBowie1958]

As if redcoats and Indians were all we might have to defend ourselves from, right ? What a stupid post.

At the time, yes. So tell me Einstein, what are you needing to protect yourself from these days with a militia?

if you actually had a clue what you were talking about, weren't blindly pushing an agenda and bothered to find out what the real intent of the militia described in the 2nd amendment was really for, you will realize that militia is needed now more than any time in our history.

The dude is a Tar Baby, so I wouldn't expect much more from him than the stupid off-the-cuff remarks he has been making this far.

The guy is a real imbecile.

 

[Bumberclyde]

At the time, yes. So tell me Einstein, what are you needing to protect yourself from these days with a militia?

if you actually had a clue what you were talking about, weren't blindly pushing an agenda and bothered to find out what the real intent of the militia described in the 2nd amendment was really for, you will realize that militia is needed now more than any time in our history.

The dude is a Tar Baby, so I wouldn't expect much more from him than the stupid off-the-cuff remarks he has been making this far.

The guy is a real imbecile.

I'm an imbecile yet you can't answer my question, and just throw out schoolyard insults. YAWN! So what does that make you if you are unable to answer an imbecile's question?

 

[hunarcy]

if you actually had a clue what you were talking about, weren't blindly pushing an agenda and bothered to find out what the real intent of the militia described in the 2nd amendment was really for, you will realize that militia is needed now more than any time in our history.

If he could do those things, he wouldn't be a troll. Don't set the bar too high.

 

[Spiderman]

At the time, yes. So tell me Einstein, what are you needing to protect yourself from these days with a militia?

if you actually had a clue what you were talking about, weren't blindly pushing an agenda and bothered to find out what the real intent of the militia described in the 2nd amendment was really for, you will realize that militia is needed now more than any time in our history.

Why? I don't even see a "well-regulated militia" between civilian gun owners these days.

Owning a firearm has nothing to do with a militia.

The Constitution clearly states

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The militia was secondary to the right to keep and bear arms not primary.

 

[Bumberclyde]

if you actually had a clue what you were talking about, weren't blindly pushing an agenda and bothered to find out what the real intent of the militia described in the 2nd amendment was really for, you will realize that militia is needed now more than any time in our history.

Why? I don't even see a "well-regulated militia" between civilian gun owners these days.

Owning a firearm has nothing to do with a militia.

The Constitution clearly states

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The militia was secondary to the right to keep and bear arms not primary.

Ok, so we can take the militia part out of the Constitution? Let's ask the NRA.
And that doesn't seem to give unlimited powers so as to be impossible to restrict gun sales in any meaningful way, because otherwise you should be able to buy ANY "arms", all the way up to nukes. It just says you can own a gun. And strangely, it seems to be saying that you can't infringe on ANYONE'S right to own a gun, even criminals, the mentally insane and all the other undesirable people you wouldn't want packing?

 

[Spiderman]

Why? I don't even see a "well-regulated militia" between civilian gun owners these days.

Owning a firearm has nothing to do with a militia.

The Constitution clearly states

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed

The militia was secondary to the right to keep and bear arms not primary.

Ok, so we can take the militia part out of the Constitution? Let's ask the NRA.
And that doesn't seem to give unlimited powers so as to be impossible to restrict gun sales in any meaningful way, because otherwise you should be able to buy ANY "arms", all the way up to nukes. It just says you can own a gun. And strangely, it seems to be saying that you can't infringe on ANYONE'S right to own a gun, even criminals, the mentally insane and all the other undesirable people you wouldn't want packing?

You don't have to take it out.

And don't be a fucking idiot with the nuclear weapon shit.

 

[Bumberclyde]

Owning a firearm has nothing to do with a militia.

The Constitution clearly states



The militia was secondary to the right to keep and bear arms not primary.

Ok, so we can take the militia part out of the Constitution? Let's ask the NRA.
And that doesn't seem to give unlimited powers so as to be impossible to restrict gun sales in any meaningful way, because otherwise you should be able to buy ANY "arms", all the way up to nukes. It just says you can own a gun. And strangely, it seems to be saying that you can't infringe on ANYONE'S right to own a gun, even criminals, the mentally insane and all the other undesirable people you wouldn't want packing?

You don't have to take it out.

And don't be a fucking idiot with the nuclear weapon shit.

Why not nukes? Otherwise, your rights would be infringed upon, wouldn't they? Or do you agree that some limits are ok?

 

[Spiderman]

Ok, so we can take the militia part out of the Constitution? Let's ask the NRA.
And that doesn't seem to give unlimited powers so as to be impossible to restrict gun sales in any meaningful way, because otherwise you should be able to buy ANY "arms", all the way up to nukes. It just says you can own a gun. And strangely, it seems to be saying that you can't infringe on ANYONE'S right to own a gun, even criminals, the mentally insane and all the other undesirable people you wouldn't want packing?

You don't have to take it out.

And don't be a fucking idiot with the nuclear weapon shit.

Why not nukes? Otherwise, your rights would be infringed upon, wouldn't they? Or do you agree that some limits are ok?

Run along now little Boy.

Your attempt at reducing the argument to the ridiculous has failed.

This thread is about carrying a firearm for self defense not about nuking anyone.

 

[Bumberclyde]

You don't have to take it out.

And don't be a fucking idiot with the nuclear weapon shit.

Why not nukes? Otherwise, your rights would be infringed upon, wouldn't they? Or do you agree that some limits are ok?

Run along now little Boy.

Your attempt at reducing the argument to the ridiculous has failed.

This thread is about carrying a firearm for self defense not about nuking anyone.

You agree that some limits are ok. That's cool.

And aren't mental cases 2nd Amendment rights being violated with background mental health checks?


.