This one is for the gun grabbers. Explain this.

[danielpalos]

lol. the right wing prefers to get their, "gospel Truth", from Wikileaks.

I really don't know why you keep referring to the "right wing" when responding to me.

Being skeptical of the press is as important as being skeptical of anything else.

Sceptical is one thing but being paranoid of the media is a give away that you're part of the hate party, considering paranoia is a prerequisite to be a conservative. There is no way in hell that President Scum Bag's paranoid mentally twisted hate driven and as you call it being skeptical of the media. Is anything other then his mental illness showing. And I would say for you also, in fact the last of the holder oners that support scum bag are all in that group.

You have no clue as to what my political leanings are.

What a joke, looks like a pile, votes like a pile, smells like a pile, talks like a pile, thinks like a pile, hates like a pile. You better believe it's a pile.

Like I said you have no clue as to my political leanings

and where is the link to your $1200 fully automatic rifle?

Who cares; I have a right join the militia and become well regulated and ask to weapons qualify on being a bazookanier or grenadier.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Like I said you have no clue as to my political leanings

and where is the link to your $1200 fully automatic rifle?

He won't respond to that question. Here is the site he posted a few pages back:

http://www.gunbroker.com/Machine-Guns/BI.aspx?BuyNowOnly=1&Sort=13&Tab=2

Even if the site is not a scam many of those firearms are not legal to sell to civilians even if they have a class 3 firearms permit and tax stamp

This exclusion is posted for a lot of the firearms on that site

This is a post 86 dealer sample will require a LE demo letter for 01 FFL's and class 2 mfg or importers. If you don't have an FFL/SOT don't bid - not transferable to non SOT holders/Civilians !!!

That's what I'm trying to tell him, but he's self-convinced anybody from the US can buy those weapons. You can't talk to a deaf person unless they are looking at you.

 

[danielpalos]

How to Get a Class 3 Firearms License

 

[Skull Pilot]

How to Get a Class 3 Firearms License

And?

That has nothing to do with the fact that a legal fully automatic rifle costs tens of thousands of dollars

 

[danielpalos]

How to Get a Class 3 Firearms License

And?

That has nothing to do with the fact that a legal fully automatic rifle costs tens of thousands of dollars

A spot check on the market shows I can buy a decent fully automatic rifle for five thousand or less.

 

[Skull Pilot]

How to Get a Class 3 Firearms License

And?

That has nothing to do with the fact that a legal fully automatic rifle costs tens of thousands of dollars

A spot check on the market shows I can buy a decent fully automatic rifle for five thousand or less.

LINK

 

[Frankeneinstein]

lol. it is right wingers who love to love their guns.

and the left wingers who love to pretend the constitution matters to them

 

[Guysguy]

lol. it is right wingers who love to love their guns.

and the left wingers who love to pretend the constitution matters to them

And what kind of document is the Constitution that establishes liberty? It's liberal.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

And what kind of document is the Constitution that establishes liberty? It's liberal.

here is an easy yes or no question for those not pretending they are really "liberals" then, does your claim [the above] include the second amendment?, I dare you to answer yes or no!

 

[Guysguy]

And what kind of document is the Constitution that establishes liberty? It's liberal.

here is an easy yes or no question for those not pretending they are really "liberals" then, does your claim [the above] include the second amendment?, I dare you to answer yes or no!

No, but the ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights does. It was ratified two years later.

And it can be removed the same way it was added. That makes you nervous I bet? Yes or no, I dare you?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

No,

so then, is the constitution with the second amendment liberal???
get ready folks, the truth and logic are both about to be tortured if he tries to answer this one

but the ten amendments known as the Bill of Rights does. It was ratified two years later

then why, as I originally claimed, did you pretend it was the constitution you were referring to?????????...you are now caught in a lie


.

And it can be removed the same way it was added.

,
and you would like to pretend that is how liberty works?

That makes you nervous I bet? Yes or no, I dare you?

Great big yes comrade!!!!! any attack on the constitution scares the crap out of me ...it doesn't scare you Ivan?

 

[Frankeneinstein]

This is the mentally weak right with this type of logic , or lack of logic. That got a mentally ill , hateful pile of shit elected into the most powerful seat in the world , with a little red button next to that seat that once pushed ends mankind.

I developed the "mentally weak logic" in that post from the late 60's and 70's arguments over the first amendment, most everyone arguing for restrictions [which included me at the time] sounded exactly like you [including me]...so if the logic is mentally weak then we may/should probably revisit those arguments for restrictions on both the first and second amendments...would you be willing to do that?

 

[danielpalos]

How to Get a Class 3 Firearms License

And?

That has nothing to do with the fact that a legal fully automatic rifle costs tens of thousands of dollars

A spot check on the market shows I can buy a decent fully automatic rifle for five thousand or less.

LINK

http://www.gunbroker.com/Machine-Guns/BI.aspx

 

[danielpalos]

lol. it is right wingers who love to love their guns.

and the left wingers who love to pretend the constitution matters to them

Of course it matters. The right wing merely has, lousy reading comprehension and are clueless and Causeless, as a result.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

OK one lie from me then. What did I say that's a lie

Well for one you said that, the constitution with the second amendment was a liberal document...do you believe that?...if you can not figure out why you are having trouble answering yes or no to that question it is because the television has never told you how!

 

[Frankeneinstein]

Of course it matters. The right wing merely has, lousy reading comprehension and are clueless and Causeless, as a result.

ok, we're almost there Ivan...my comprehension say's congress shall make no law infringing on my/your/our right to bear arms, can you comprehend that? or do you have to circumvent the comprehension argument now that you are sorry you made it?

 

[danielpalos]

Of course it matters. The right wing merely has, lousy reading comprehension and are clueless and Causeless, as a result.

ok, we're almost there Ivan...my comprehension say's congress shall make no law infringing on my/your/our right to bear arms, can you comprehend that? or do you have to circumvent the comprehension argument now that you are sorry you made it?

It says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State, not natural rights.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

It says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State,

no wonder you do not know it is you with the comprehension problem, this is what it really say's verbatum [cut and paste for your level of comprehension]:
"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."

see why the right got it right and where your comprehension went wrong?

not natural rights.

lol...yeah, because all our rights hinge on that....geez dude, you are not going to be able to hide your inability to comprehend the constitution with bogus claims of your own...why do you not do what I did, it really got me to seperate myself from being a democrat and a liberal...ask yourself why all the things you believe are so easy to disprove and embarrass you when they are not on TV? trust me, if you ask yourself this in an honest manner i.e. [you really would like to know if you are arguing ideology or fact] you will see what is really happening and who it really is being brainwashed

 

[danielpalos]

It says, well regulated militia are necessary to the security of a free State,

no wonder you do not know it is you with the comprehension problem, this is what it really say's verbatum [cut and paste for your level of comprehension]:
"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."

see why the right got it right and where your comprehension went wrong?

not natural rights.

lol...yeah, because all our rights hinge on that....geez dude, you are not going to be able to hide your inability to comprehend the constitution with bogus claims of your own...why do you not do what I did, it really got me to seperate myself from being a democrat and a liberal...ask yourself why all the things you believe are so easy to disprove and embarrass you when they are not on TV? trust me, if you ask yourself this in an honest manner i.e. [you really would like to know if you are arguing ideology or fact] you will see what is really happening and who it really is being brainwashed

It says, well regulated militia are necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union; not defense of natural rights.

 

[Frankeneinstein]

It says, well regulated militia are necessary and shall not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union;[/quote/]

not defense of natural rights.

OK, now, copy and paste what it actually says in the second amendment under what you just posted and you will/or should be, able to tell who has a comprehension problem...everyone else will be able to tell.

not defense of natural rights.

you keep pretending that is in the constitution...if that has any bearing on rights then eventually we will have no rights at all, which of course is what the right is claiming you are really up to by going after the constitution on amendment two, the "no defense of natural rights" argument is exactly what you would need to go after the constitution...I have to ask now...after reading the second amendment do you personally think the comprehension level of those on the left leaves them feeling that they can point to the second amendment in a courtroom and it says right there that "congress can make laws that infringe on our rights to bear arms"? keep in mind that the question is wht you think of the lefts comprehension level as the 2nd amendment reads...anything else will be a dodge