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.
Nope, "shall not be infringed" has nothing to do with need.
It has other word too, like ... being necessary to ...
Right, the people being armed is necessary to maintain a free state. The right is inalienable. The need is only if you wish to remain free, which is up to the individual.
It doesn't matter what you think might be needed to remain free. It doesn't matter if you wish to be subjugated, the right of the people to be armed is one we're born with and it shall not be infringed. There is no need that has to be established because it's a right.
It has other word too, like ... being necessary to ...
Right, the people being armed is necessary to maintain a free state. The right is inalienable. [...] The need is only if you wish to remain free, which is up to the individual.
It doesn't matter what you think might be needed to remain free. It doesn't matter if you wish to be subjugated, the right of the people to be armed is one we're born with and it shall not be infringed. There is no need that has to be established because it's a right.
... insofar as it serves the need of the state.
Like you, am no Con Law scholar.
So I look at the way things are.
And indeed, the tools of war are not to be purchased nor owned by the civilian population in the USA, in most cases.
If you bothered to look out your fucking window, you would know this.
It has other word too, like ... being necessary to ...
Right, the people being armed is necessary to maintain a free state. The right is inalienable. [...] The need is only if you wish to remain free, which is up to the individual.
It doesn't matter what you think might be needed to remain free. It doesn't matter if you wish to be subjugated, the right of the people to be armed is one we're born with and it shall not be infringed. There is no need that has to be established because it's a right.
... insofar as it serves the need of the state.
Who needs an assault rifle?
Who needs high definition television? Me
Who needs Cadillac Escalades? Rappers with larger entourages needing the extra seating capacity.
Who needs fine wine and filet minon? People who cannot grill tastier cuts and have them come out tender.
Who needs Nike shoes? Lance Armstrong, until recently.
Who needs video consoles and games? Children without access to books.
Who needs..................................
LIVE FREE OR DIE! (Folks fighting a death sentence might not agree.)
See bolds above ^^^^
I like how you equivocate the meaning of "need" when it suits you.
The point obviously sailed over your head.
When dipshits start deciding that evidence of a "need" is necessary to exercise our inalienable rights, then that is when they become tyrant wannabes.
It has other word too, like ... being necessary to ...
Right, the people being armed is necessary to maintain a free state. The right is inalienable. The need is only if you wish to remain free, which is up to the individual.
It doesn't matter what you think might be needed to remain free. It doesn't matter if you wish to be subjugated, the right of the people to be armed is one we're born with and it shall not be infringed. There is no need that has to be established because it's a right.
You're reading that into it and being merely an NRA propoganda scholar and not a Con Law scholar.
If you beat your wife, you'll lose your gun rights, which have nothing to do with your need to be free and everything to do with keeping the state safe.
Nope. That's who can have them, and not who needs or wants one.
For example, I do not want nor need one. Chicks are telling me all the time, "Wow; you're big for a white guy." So clearly, I need no assault rifle, nor would I waste time playing around in the woods with middle aged, fat-gut virgins in camo, with the intelligence of fucking fruit flies, when the bitches are wanting my spare time for doing other things.
Ya feel me?
If you beat your wife, you'll lose your gun rights, which have nothing to do with your need to be free and everything to do with keeping the state safe.
Like you, am no Con Law scholar.
And how do you know what I am? Either way, you're ignoring what I said. You don't know anything about firearms, and are therefore not qualified to begin to discuss who "needs" a certain type of weapon, or to characterize people who may possess such type weapons. Particularly when you're characterizations are juvenile ad hominems.
So I look at the way things are.
No. As you've just confessed, you have no actual expertise or knowledge that is relevant to this issue. Therefore, you can't possibly look at things "the way they are." Instead, you look at things the way you want to see them.
And indeed, the tools of war are not to be purchased nor owned by the civilian population in the USA, in most cases.
Even if we accept this idea as true (which is dubious in and of itself, which you would know if you knew anything about second amendment rights) I'm not sure what relevance it has here. There are no M-16s being owned or purchased by the civilian population.
If you bothered to look out your fucking window, you would know this.
Temper, temper. The person who reacts with anger to an intelligently expressed opinion is the person who lacks intelligent expression for his own opinion.
In any event, I just looked out my window and let me tell you what I saw. A few cars in the parking lot. Some neighbors walking about, checking the mail, leaving with their kids, etc. None of this does anything to suggest that so called "assault" weapons should denied to any of them, if they so choose to own them.
I will not only take that bet, I'll give you odds.Unless obama and Holder are at the controls, the odds of the government using drones against its citizens are ZERO. I'm willing to bet that if the military were ordered to fire on US citizens for failing to comply with an unconstitutional law, President obama would be in custody in a matter of minutes.
Like you, am no Con Law scholar.
And how do you know what I am? Either way, you're ignoring what I said. You don't know anything about firearms, and are therefore not qualified to begin to discuss who "needs" a certain type of weapon, or to characterize people who may possess such type weapons. Particularly when you're characterizations are juvenile ad hominems.
No. As you've just confessed, you have no actual expertise or knowledge that is relevant to this issue. Therefore, you can't possibly look at things "the way they are." Instead, you look at things the way you want to see them.
Even if we accept this idea as true (which is dubious in and of itself, which you would know if you knew anything about second amendment rights) I'm not sure what relevance it has here. There are no M-16s being owned or purchased by the civilian population.
If you bothered to look out your fucking window, you would know this.
Temper, temper. The person who reacts with anger to an intelligently expressed opinion is the person who lacks intelligent expression for his own opinion.
In any event, I just looked out my window and let me tell you what I saw. A few cars in the parking lot. Some neighbors walking about, checking the mail, leaving with their kids, etc. None of this does anything to suggest that so called "assault" weapons should denied to any of them, if they so choose to own them.
I've read your drivel, and can assume with great certainty that you're abject moron; ergo, no great legal mind.
Meanwhile, whilst looking at cars and shit out your window, did the concept of "metaphors" pop into your pinhead?
There are very few things we need in this life to survive. Food, water, shelter and something to protect us from harm. For some that meant hand-maid clubs, for others it meant swords, bow & arrows or guns....it's all relative.
I personally don't need a gun, but if I got one it would be for protection and nothing more. I see no reason to use something that was intended to kill as merely an instrument for entertainment. That's just me though.
If you beat your wife, you'll lose your gun rights, which have nothing to do with your need to be free and everything to do with keeping the state safe.
Well, you're right that it's not a second amendment issue. It's a 14th amendment issue, regarding a person being deprived of life or liberty through due process of the law.
There is no right to bear nuclear hand grenades
And how do you know what I am? Either way, you're ignoring what I said. You don't know anything about firearms, and are therefore not qualified to begin to discuss who "needs" a certain type of weapon, or to characterize people who may possess such type weapons. Particularly when you're characterizations are juvenile ad hominems.
No. As you've just confessed, you have no actual expertise or knowledge that is relevant to this issue. Therefore, you can't possibly look at things "the way they are." Instead, you look at things the way you want to see them.
Even if we accept this idea as true (which is dubious in and of itself, which you would know if you knew anything about second amendment rights) I'm not sure what relevance it has here. There are no M-16s being owned or purchased by the civilian population.
Temper, temper. The person who reacts with anger to an intelligently expressed opinion is the person who lacks intelligent expression for his own opinion.
In any event, I just looked out my window and let me tell you what I saw. A few cars in the parking lot. Some neighbors walking about, checking the mail, leaving with their kids, etc. None of this does anything to suggest that so called "assault" weapons should denied to any of them, if they so choose to own them.
I've read your drivel, and can assume with great certainty that you're abject moron; ergo, no great legal mind.
Meanwhile, whilst looking at cars and shit out your window, did the concept of "metaphors" pop into your pinhead?
Do you have anything to offer that involves intellect, or is your entire position based on ad hominems?
There is no right to bear nuclear hand grenades
Although I really encourage leftists to wear them in their underwear!
Sorry, nowhere in the 14th does it say you can or cannot lose your other rights. It's just life, liberty and property that's secure and subject to due process vis a vis the 14th. So you cannot be executed, jailed nor have your shit siezed without due process.
