The Right To Bear Arms

[TyroneSlothrop]

/——-/ Actually you can, but not one that is operational. You see gun grabbers use extreme examples out of desperation. Why can I own a tank? Ever see the muzzle on one of those babies?

The holy 2nd amendment speaks about the right to bear arms, a bit difficult to carry a tank around.... but an RPG should be no problem

Are those allowed in the exceptional empire?

You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

/——-/ Actually you can, but not one that is operational. You see gun grabbers use extreme examples out of desperation. Why can I own a tank? Ever see the muzzle on one of those babies?

The holy 2nd amendment speaks about the right to bear arms, a bit difficult to carry a tank around.... but an RPG should be no problem

Are those allowed in the exceptional empire?

do not own marijuana it is too dangerous to own

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——-/ Actually you can, but not one that is operational. You see gun grabbers use extreme examples out of desperation. Why can I own a tank? Ever see the muzzle on one of those babies?

The holy 2nd amendment speaks about the right to bear arms, a bit difficult to carry a tank around.... but an RPG should be no problem

Are those allowed in the exceptional empire?

You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution

/----/ Is denying slander against the 1st Amendment? How about yelling fire in a crowded theatre if there is no fire? Of course there are limitations, no one except you question it.

 

[Jantje_Smit]

You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution

The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.

So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..

And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course

 

[Cellblock2429]

/——-/ Actually you can, but not one that is operational. You see gun grabbers use extreme examples out of desperation. Why can I own a tank? Ever see the muzzle on one of those babies?

The holy 2nd amendment speaks about the right to bear arms, a bit difficult to carry a tank around.... but an RPG should be no problem

Are those allowed in the exceptional empire?

/----/ " a bit difficult to carry a tank around.." One does not carry a tank around, you dimwit. One drives it around. "
Owning a Tank: What You Need to Know | Visual.ly

 

[Cellblock2429]

You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution

The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.

So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..

And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course

/----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution

The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.

So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..

And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course

/----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027

we need to have periodic gun slaughter so that fat men with Nazi tattoos can get their groove on

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I want very Black male to own an AR 15 and to Open Carry

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

I want very Black male to own an AR 15 and to Open Carry

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[Cecilie1200]

You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution

The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.

So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..

And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course

I don't recall anything in the "sacred Constitution" about MUST become part of anything.

And I have no more worries about law-abiding gun owners owning a any of the extremist, "scary" examples you bring up than I do about them owning what they have now.

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution

The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.

So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..

And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course

I don't recall anything in the "sacred Constitution" about MUST become part of anything.

And I have no more worries about law-abiding gun owners owning a any of the extremist, "scary" examples you bring up than I do about them owning what they have now.

The best available evidence suggests NRA-backed gun policies are making crime worse
The best available evidence suggests two major National Rifle Association gun policy prescriptions — what are known as “stand your ground” self-defense laws and permissive concealed carry laws — increase homicides and violent crime.

That is according to a massive new study by the RAND Corporation, an independent think tank. The group's experts scoured thousands of academic papers on gun violence in an effort to make definitive statements about how gun policies affect crime and safety. They winnowed that list down to only the highest-quality studies — just 62 in total — containing evidence capable of establishing a causal link between a gun policy change and a specific outcome.

Because the RAND researchers' criteria for including studies in their final analysis were rigorous, for the majority of policies and outcomes, there was not enough good research to make any definitive statements — a clear indication of how little we know about how to prevent gun violence. But there were notable exceptions.

There is moderate evidence, for instance, that “stand your ground” laws, which remove the requirement for gun owners to attempt to retreat from a situation before using lethal force, increase total rates of homicide. A 2013 study, for instance, found that states passing such laws saw 6 percent to 11 percent increases in their total homicide rate. Another study found that Florida experienced a significant 24 percent increase in total homicides and 32 percent increase in firearm homicides following enactment of the stand-your-ground law in 2005.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/amph...making-crime-worse/?__twitter_impression=true

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

This is the Kind of Mental Cripple that Typifies Trump and the GOP...Religious Fanatic weirdos and Fuck Waffles
Pruitt Said Evolution Is Just a ‘Theory’
Pruitt also described the Second Amendment as divinely granted and condemned federal judges as a “judicial monarchy” that is “the most grievous threat that we have today.” And he did not object when the program’s host described Islam as “not so much a religion as it is a terrorist organization in many instances.”
March 3, 2018
EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt dismissed evolution as an unproven theory, lamented that “minority religions” were pushing Christianity out of “the public square” and advocated amending the Constitution to ban abortion, prohibit same-sex marriage and protect the Pledge of Allegiance and the Ten Commandments, according to a newly unearthed series of Oklahoma talk radio shows from 2005, Politico reports.

Pruitt also described the Second Amendment as divinely granted and condemned federal judges as a “judicial monarchy” that is “the most grievous threat that we have today.” And he did not object when the program’s host described Islam as “not so much a religion as it is a terrorist organization in many instances.”

 

[Flopper]

"The great object is that every man be armed. If this be treason, make the most of it! Are we at last brought to such humiliating and debasing degradation, that we cannot be trusted with arms for our defense?" ~ Patrick Henry, 1788

Such quotes are suppose to lead us to the conclusion that the founding fathers were concerned about the individual's right to bear arms which just isn't true. It’s not that they were against the idea of an individual's right to bear arms. It was just not an issue that concerned them. What did concern them was the future of the part time citizen militias. They saw militias as an alternative to a standing professional army which they feared as well as opposed because of the taxes required to support it. Militias were cheap and could be used to form an army when needed.

To have militias protect the country, people needed to be able to acquire fire arms. However, with the French revolution in the minds a lot of the wealthy land owners and businessmen, they did not want to see an armed populist. The founders felt that in order to guarantee the future of the militias and thus the security of the state without a professional army, the right to bear arms was essential because without public access to firearms, there would be no militias.

Today, we do not need part time militias in lieu of a standing army to defend the nation. If we consider the intent of the founders, the second amendment is simply obsolete because militias are not needed to defend the nation and thus there is no need for the amendment.

The primary need today for guns is not to make possible militias to defend the nation, but rather to guarantee the people's right to acquire guns to protect themselves from other people who do the same. It's just plain nuts.

 

[Flopper]

You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution

The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.

So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..

And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course

/----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[Flopper]

If Jesus carried a gun, the gospel would be meaningless.

"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right. cheek, turn to him the other also."
Mathew 5:38

 

[TyroneSlothrop]

If Jesus carried a gun, the gospel would be meaningless.

"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right. cheek, turn to him the other also."
Mathew 5:38

have the Evangelicals heard of this ?

 

[Cellblock2429]

You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution

The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.

So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..

And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course

/----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787