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.
So you were still allowed to buy bullets, thanks for clearing that up./——/ Besides armor piercing, black talon and exploding bullets?When were you not allowed to buy bullets?Start by stopping to sell bullets. Eventually, most people will have no use for a wall-hanger.The dumb liberal crackpots just don't have the mental capacity to understand how hard it would be to ban and confiscate guns
Obama did exactly that.
So you have nothing else. Got it.Writings on paper with a pen or even a pencil have been court approved as free speech already (within the usual limits of course), so you lose there. Writings on internet also have the same court declared protection of free speech (like I said, within the usual limits). Another loss.
Got anything else?
The courts don't "approve" methods.
One doesn't lead to the other, there's no connection. Anyways, are you ok with banning the sale of nukes, AA missiles, bunker busting bombs, chemical weapons... to ordinary citizens?So you have nothing else. Got it.Writings on paper with a pen or even a pencil have been court approved as free speech already (within the usual limits of course), so you lose there. Writings on internet also have the same court declared protection of free speech (like I said, within the usual limits). Another loss.
Got anything else?
The courts don't "approve" methods.
Actually I believe you are making the other sides argument.
Freedom of speech isn’t infringed upon, so don’t INFRINGE on our right to possess guns, see that was easy wasn’t it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
/----/ No one ever suggested citizens should own those weapons. It's all made up Lib BS and a strawman argument meant to distract.One doesn't lead to the other, there's no connection. Anyways, are you ok with banning the sale of nukes, AA missiles, bunker busting bombs, chemical weapons... to ordinary citizens?So you have nothing else. Got it.Writings on paper with a pen or even a pencil have been court approved as free speech already (within the usual limits of course), so you lose there. Writings on internet also have the same court declared protection of free speech (like I said, within the usual limits). Another loss.
Got anything else?
The courts don't "approve" methods.
Actually I believe you are making the other sides argument.
Freedom of speech isn’t infringed upon, so don’t INFRINGE on our right to possess guns, see that was easy wasn’t it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
How about those people with their guns marching for gay people to have their rights?
Get up from the computer first..
After my next operation maybe..Get up from the computer first..
Says the person wearing a badge that says he had the most posts last month.
But do I have a 2nd right to own such weapons? Yes or no?/----/ No one ever suggested citizens should own those weapons. It's all made up Lib BS and a strawman argument meant to distract.One doesn't lead to the other, there's no connection. Anyways, are you ok with banning the sale of nukes, AA missiles, bunker busting bombs, chemical weapons... to ordinary citizens?So you have nothing else. Got it.Writings on paper with a pen or even a pencil have been court approved as free speech already (within the usual limits of course), so you lose there. Writings on internet also have the same court declared protection of free speech (like I said, within the usual limits). Another loss.
Got anything else?
The courts don't "approve" methods.
Actually I believe you are making the other sides argument.
Freedom of speech isn’t infringed upon, so don’t INFRINGE on our right to possess guns, see that was easy wasn’t it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Start by stopping to sell bullets. Eventually, most people will have no use for a wall-hanger.The dumb liberal crackpots just don't have the mental capacity to understand how hard it would be to ban and confiscate guns
Says the person who just a moment ago denied an intent to eliminate guns.
/-----/ As you well know that is a strawman argument and the 2nd Amendment does not list what arms are allowed. So why do you insist on being obtuse?But do I have a 2nd right to own such weapons? Yes or no?/----/ No one ever suggested citizens should own those weapons. It's all made up Lib BS and a strawman argument meant to distract.One doesn't lead to the other, there's no connection. Anyways, are you ok with banning the sale of nukes, AA missiles, bunker busting bombs, chemical weapons... to ordinary citizens?So you have nothing else. Got it.The courts don't "approve" methods.
Actually I believe you are making the other sides argument.
Freedom of speech isn’t infringed upon, so don’t INFRINGE on our right to possess guns, see that was easy wasn’t it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Because my point is that everyone, but EVERYONE is ok with limits on the 2nd. So the strawman argument is the one people use to say they are defending their 2nd rights, because they've already agreed not to defended them for some weapons./-----/ As you well know that is a strawman argument and the 2nd Amendment does not list what arms are allowed. So why do you insist on being obtuse?But do I have a 2nd right to own such weapons? Yes or no?/----/ No one ever suggested citizens should own those weapons. It's all made up Lib BS and a strawman argument meant to distract.One doesn't lead to the other, there's no connection. Anyways, are you ok with banning the sale of nukes, AA missiles, bunker busting bombs, chemical weapons... to ordinary citizens?So you have nothing else. Got it.
Actually I believe you are making the other sides argument.
Freedom of speech isn’t infringed upon, so don’t INFRINGE on our right to possess guns, see that was easy wasn’t it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
View attachment 185689
/----/ I'm not following you down that rabbit hole, gun grabber.Because my point is that everyone, but EVERYONE is ok with limits on the 2nd. So the strawman argument is the one people use to say they are defending their 2nd rights, because they've already agreed not to defended them for some weapons./-----/ As you well know that is a strawman argument and the 2nd Amendment does not list what arms are allowed. So why do you insist on being obtuse?But do I have a 2nd right to own such weapons? Yes or no?/----/ No one ever suggested citizens should own those weapons. It's all made up Lib BS and a strawman argument meant to distract.One doesn't lead to the other, there's no connection. Anyways, are you ok with banning the sale of nukes, AA missiles, bunker busting bombs, chemical weapons... to ordinary citizens?Actually I believe you are making the other sides argument.
Freedom of speech isn’t infringed upon, so don’t INFRINGE on our right to possess guns, see that was easy wasn’t it.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
View attachment 185689
An age limit is infringing. No nukes for sale is infringing. You agree with infringing the 2nd. Now you know./----/ I'm not following you down that rabbit hole, gun grabber.Because my point is that everyone, but EVERYONE is ok with limits on the 2nd. So the strawman argument is the one people use to say they are defending their 2nd rights, because they've already agreed not to defended them for some weapons./-----/ As you well know that is a strawman argument and the 2nd Amendment does not list what arms are allowed. So why do you insist on being obtuse?But do I have a 2nd right to own such weapons? Yes or no?/----/ No one ever suggested citizens should own those weapons. It's all made up Lib BS and a strawman argument meant to distract.One doesn't lead to the other, there's no connection. Anyways, are you ok with banning the sale of nukes, AA missiles, bunker busting bombs, chemical weapons... to ordinary citizens?
View attachment 185689
"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."
/-----/An age limit is infringing. No nukes for sale is infringing. You agree with infringing the 2nd. Now you know./----/ I'm not following you down that rabbit hole, gun grabber.Because my point is that everyone, but EVERYONE is ok with limits on the 2nd. So the strawman argument is the one people use to say they are defending their 2nd rights, because they've already agreed not to defended them for some weapons./-----/ As you well know that is a strawman argument and the 2nd Amendment does not list what arms are allowed. So why do you insist on being obtuse?But do I have a 2nd right to own such weapons? Yes or no?/----/ No one ever suggested citizens should own those weapons. It's all made up Lib BS and a strawman argument meant to distract.
View attachment 185689
"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."
An age limit is infringing. No nukes for sale is infringing. You agree with infringing the 2nd. Now you know.
/—-/ Kerp in mind that Taz’s tactic is to divert your attention and lead you down a rabbit hole of never ending “what if’s” and straw man arguments in hopes you’ll throw up your hands in disgust and stop defending the 2nd Amendment. He never stops.An age limit is infringing. No nukes for sale is infringing. You agree with infringing the 2nd. Now you know.
All you have done in this thread is demonstrate how ignorant and uneducated you are. Yes, there are limits to the kinds of arms that are protected by the second amendment. There are limits to all rights. What you fail to understand is that those limits are not subject to your personal desires or arbitrary bullshit. The second amendment does not guarantee a right to possess nuclear bombs anymore than the first amendment protects a right to make threats against the President or law enforcement. The second amendment protects an individual's right to protect the kind of normal personal arms that are typical for an individual's lawful use, such as hunting, personal protection, or defense of the state at a moment's notice.
You keep rattling with comparisons that don't make a damn bit of sense. It doesn't make you smart. It proves you're an idiot.
You agree that there are limits to the 2nd, that’s why some guns can be banned.An age limit is infringing. No nukes for sale is infringing. You agree with infringing the 2nd. Now you know.
All you have done in this thread is demonstrate how ignorant and uneducated you are. Yes, there are limits to the kinds of arms that are protected by the second amendment. There are limits to all rights. What you fail to understand is that those limits are not subject to your personal desires or arbitrary bullshit. The second amendment does not guarantee a right to possess nuclear bombs anymore than the first amendment protects a right to make threats against the President or law enforcement. The second amendment protects an individual's right to protect the kind of normal personal arms that are typical for an individual's lawful use, such as hunting, personal protection, or defense of the state at a moment's notice.
You keep rattling with comparisons that don't make a damn bit of sense. It doesn't make you smart. It proves you're an idiot.
How about those people with their guns marching for gay people to have their rights?
Yes, because there has never been a gay pride parade, ever.
You gave us a link to an opinion piece, nothing more. Anyway, where does your militia train and who is your commander?"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."
"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state."
"The shooter is almost always male. Of the past 129 mass shootings in the United States, all but three have been men. The shooter is socially alienated, and he can’t get laid. Every time you scratch the surface of the latest mass killing, in a movie theatre, a school, the streets of Paris or an abortion clinic, you find the weaponised loser. From Jihadi John of ISIS to Dylan Klebold and Eric Harris at Columbine, these men are invariably stuck in the emotional life of an adolescent. They always struggle with self-esteem – especially regarding women – and sometimes they give up entirely on the possibility of amorous fulfilment. There are different levels of tactical coordination, different ostensible grievances and different access to firearms, but the psyche beneath is invariably the same." Humiliation and rage: how toxic masculinity fuels mass shootings | Aeon Essays
"About 32,000 people are shot and killed every year in the United States. An additional 70,000 suffer non-fatal injuries from gun shots, three-quarters of which are due to interpersonal violence. Since 1968, more people have been killed by firearms on this civilian ‘peacetime’ battleground across the US than in all military conflicts beginning with the War of Independence in 1775. In 1997, the rate of firearm deaths among children under 15 years old was about 12 times higher in the US than the combined rate for 25 other industrialised countries. And in 2010, firearms accounted for 18,270 deaths or injuries to children and teenagers. The number of deaths due to guns has gone down from a peak in the early 1990s, but firearms still account for half the suicides and over two-thirds of all homicides. It is just a whole lot easier to kill with a bullet than by strangling, drowning, poisoning, or with fists, clubs and knives. But despite these ghastly statistics, one constantly encounters stickers, cable news hosts, and editorials insisting that guns save lives." http://aeon.co/magazine/society/do-guns-save-lives/
"Keeping a gun in the home carries a murder risk 2.7 times greater than not keeping one, according to a study by Arthur Kellermann. The National Rifle Association has fiercely attacked this study, but it remains valid despite its criticisms. The study found that people are 21 times more likely to be killed by someone they know than a stranger breaking into the house. Half of the murders were over arguments or romantic triangles. The study also found that the increased murder rate in gun-owning households was entirely due to an increase in gun homicides only, not any other murder method. It further found that gun-owning households saw an increased murder risk by family or intimate acquaintances, not by strangers or non-intimate acquaintances. The most straightforward explanation is that the presence of a gun increases the possibility that a normal family fight or drinking binge will become deadly. No other explanation fits the above facts." A gun in the home increases personal safety
Well regulated does not mean what you think. It means well trained & disciplined. The militia is the people.
The Second Amendment: The Framers' Intentions
