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.
You should be allowed to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President?
Okay................let's start off small..........................why would you need a 50 cal. machine gun? How's about a shoulder fired surface to air missile? What value could either of those items be to you?
Based on many of your posts, I'm guessing not much, because I seriously doubt you've ever seen any kind of military time.
Please quit following me around dude or I'll just ignore you. If we are gonna ban everything except what people need we aren't gonna have jack shit. Like this forum. Like the internet. Equally weaponry creates more liberty. The most prosperous time for freedom in recent times was when Kings, Presidents, and average people controlled the same weapons.
Go ahead pussy.............put me on ignore. Doesn't bother me a bit.
And who the fuck do you think you are to tell me where I can and can't post? Are you a mod?
Equal weapons create more liberty? Tell that to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. All of them have "equal weapons" yet there is more chaos and anarchy there than you can shake a stick at.
By the way Lobotomized Lemming...................how much of your brain did they pull out, all of it?
Please quit following me around dude or I'll just ignore you. If we are gonna ban everything except what people need we aren't gonna have jack shit. Like this forum. Like the internet. Equally weaponry creates more liberty. The most prosperous time for freedom in recent times was when Kings, Presidents, and average people controlled the same weapons.
Go ahead pussy.............put me on ignore. Doesn't bother me a bit.
And who the fuck do you think you are to tell me where I can and can't post? Are you a mod?
Equal weapons create more liberty? Tell that to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. All of them have "equal weapons" yet there is more chaos and anarchy there than you can shake a stick at.
By the way Lobotomized Lemming...................how much of your brain did they pull out, all of it?
Did you just say the people who live in Iran have the same weapons as the military and the politicians? You're a moron kid. You have followed me to 5 threads. I'm sorry you find me wanting more liberty so offensive but kindly fuck the fuck off.
Go ahead pussy.............put me on ignore. Doesn't bother me a bit.
And who the fuck do you think you are to tell me where I can and can't post? Are you a mod?
Equal weapons create more liberty? Tell that to the people of Afghanistan and Iraq. All of them have "equal weapons" yet there is more chaos and anarchy there than you can shake a stick at.
By the way Lobotomized Lemming...................how much of your brain did they pull out, all of it?
Did you just say the people who live in Iran have the same weapons as the military and the politicians? You're a moron kid. You have followed me to 5 threads. I'm sorry you find me wanting more liberty so offensive but kindly fuck the fuck off.
I said Afghanistan and IRAQ you fucking idiot. Iran is a totally different country.
Afghanistan and IRAQ are the countries with Al Queda in it.
Correct. . As far as the second amendment is concerned the government is forbidden from telling me what I May or May not own. Now I would actually agree that there should B limits on what we can own but that isn't what the second Amendment says.And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.
In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:
Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.
You should be allowed to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President?
Okay................let's start off small..........................why would you need a 50 cal. machine gun? How's about a shoulder fired surface to air missile? What value could either of those items be to you?
Based on many of your posts, I'm guessing not much, because I seriously doubt you've ever seen any kind of military time.
Did you just say the people who live in Iran have the same weapons as the military and the politicians? You're a moron kid. You have followed me to 5 threads. I'm sorry you find me wanting more liberty so offensive but kindly fuck the fuck off.
I said Afghanistan and IRAQ you fucking idiot. Iran is a totally different country.
Afghanistan and IRAQ are the countries with Al Queda in it.
The average person in those countries doesn't have access to the same weapons as the politicians and military.
I get it man you don't want all people to have some weapons. You can move along unless you have something else to say. The back and forth on 50 threads saying the same shit is getting boring.
When Bush decided to rape the Constitution with the Patriot Act, Domestic Surveillance, and the sweeping federal powers of the department of Homeland Security, we didn't hear a fucking peep.
Now, we have meek president talking about increasing background checks so that fewer psychopaths don't get assault rifles with high capacity magazines.
And the Rightwing voter is freaking out.
Here is what makes this whole thing tragic.
When Bush was destroying the Constitution, rightwing talk radio didn't just suppress the truth - they supported him. And, as a result, the folks on this message board had no idea what Bush was doing. Same thing with Reagan's support of Hussein or the Mujahideen. These things were and are on the public record but the Republican voter doesn't know it because none of their pundits discuss it.
To make matters worse, they have been conditioned to believe that any news source outside the FOX/Limbaugh orbit is the "lame stream media" and cannot be trusted. So even if they wanted to investigate the relationship between (say) Hussein and Bin Laden, or if they wanted to study Reagan's spending in relation to Carter's, they are literally emotionally and intellectually incapable of vacating their trusted news sources.
God help us. These people vote.
And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.
In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:
Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.
You really think every single person in Afghanistan is Al-Qaeda, you moron? We have killed scores of documented innocent civilians.
The supreme court says none of the possible bans is unconstitutional,dingbats.
And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.
In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:
Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.
Based on your statement, you should be permitted to purchase and own an M2A3 Bradley Tank, fully loaded, a Tomahawk Missile, and/or a nuclear missile, along with any type gun you want. Bottom line is most people would not want you owning any of these things.
And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.
In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:
Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.
Based on your statement, you should be permitted to purchase and own an M2A3 Bradley Tank, fully loaded, a Tomahawk Missile, and/or a nuclear missile, along with any type gun you want. Bottom line is most people would not want you owning any of these things.
read the amendment then look at historical perspective. There were Americans who in the early time frame of the constitutional conventions had larger better equipped private armies then the US government had. And somehow the founding fathers did not object to that
In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, only physiological needs for, food, water, and breathing is more important than safety. Once the physiological needs are satisfied society will rank safety as the top priority.Can you yell fire in a crowded theatre?
More people get hurt rushing out of building during a fire than by the fire. If there really is a fire, of course everyone will be screaming 'fire' and running. Someone always gets trampled. To cause that sort of chaos over a joke would be creating danger for no reason and should be illegal. Has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with public safety.
Selling people on the "public safety" has lost us more liberties than I can count. It has also put us trillions in debt, a dollar that may crash, and has killed millions of people, many innocent.
In Maslow's hierarchy of needs, only physiological needs for, food, water, and breathing is more important than safety. Once the physiological needs are satisfied society will rank safety as the top priority.More people get hurt rushing out of building during a fire than by the fire. If there really is a fire, of course everyone will be screaming 'fire' and running. Someone always gets trampled. To cause that sort of chaos over a joke would be creating danger for no reason and should be illegal. Has nothing to do with free speech and everything to do with public safety.
Selling people on the "public safety" has lost us more liberties than I can count. It has also put us trillions in debt, a dollar that may crash, and has killed millions of people, many innocent.
Can you tell us why the 1st does not protect falsely yelling fire in a theater?And that is by amending the Constitution. If my right is not to be infringed, then any control over my right to bear arms is an infringement. Yes, I mean to say that I should be able to possess any weapon that is at the disposal of the President. If the justification for my right to bear arms is that I may need to form a militia, then I should have access to the weapons a militia may require.
In case you don't know what it requires to amend the Constitution:
Constitutional Amendments - The U.S. Constitution Online - USConstitution.net
Not that I think the Constitution is something perfect. I'd prefer pretty much zero government.
Can you yell fire in a crowded theatre?
Please cite that case, and the text to that effect found in said case.The supreme court says none of the possible bans is unconstitutional
