12 Dead in Mass Shooting at So.Cal Bar

[buttercup]

This is the new level.....not just people at mass shootings....but people experiencing MORE than one mass shooting.

What bothers me about it is that nobody ever talks about the fact that almost every single one of these combatants were prescribed and on psychotropic drugs. I posted a rather long list around here some place a while back. It was disturbing.

The fact that nobody ever talks about that is very telling to me that people aren't really interested in discussing the more fundamental issue here.

The fact that every other commercial between news breaks is a drug commercial warning of suicidal thoughts and depression if you take their product is also very telling about why we never hear it discussed on those same news outlets. Have to cater to the sponsors. In this case and in many others we've read about, they're more like sponsors of mass murder.

Some of us are suspicious of the affects of big pharmaceutical’s nasty drugs and being the cause or and integral cause of these mass shootings. As you say, the fact that the MSM and our corrupt federal government ignore this, could be proof they are the cause.

Some of us are suspicious of the affects of big pharmaceutical’s nasty drugs and being the cause or and integral cause of these mass shootings. As you say, the fact that the MSM and our corrupt federal government ignore this, could be proof they are the cause.

Yeah. We'll always be in the minority, though. Read my sig : /

Kind of off-topic, but speaking of drugs, you reminded me of something.

I can’t think of the name of it off the top my head, but there is a drug that comes from a plant in South America that basically eliminates free will...and reportedly, when someone is given that drug, they will do whatever you tell them to do, like go to the ATM and empty out their bank account, etc. and then remember none of it the next day.

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if certain corrupt agencies used a drug like that to get some already mentally unstable individual to shoot up a school or nightclub or whatever. These are people with zero scruples and who believe that the ends justify the means. Based on all the research I’ve done over the years, I would put literally nothing past them.

 

[OldLady]

And people call me radical.....
The FDA?

Yeah. The FDA and the pharmaceutical companies are pretty much in bed together. It's pretty much a revolving door between one and the other as far as employment goes. Not good.Not withstanding the fact that together, they kill any competition with regard to the market for alternative and natural products.

Mainly, it's the revoving door, though. That's not good.

Ron Paul condemns close ties between FDA and Big Pharma

Doesn't the FDA test new drugs to make sure they're safe before putting them on the market? There HAVE to be close ties, I'm guessing, considering that is the case.

Well, I appreciate your approach, gipper. I made the choice early in my life not to protect myself with a firearm and I have never changed my mind. I was not aware that a lot of other countries had ever had an automatic right to own guns emblazoned in their Constitution. In retrospect, I think THAT may be been a terrible idea. Certainly, the resistance to restricting ownership to responsible and stable people has been a terrible idea and if people don't start compromising on this, I think the threat of the 2nd going away is going to become more real.
My position on guns has always been radical and I have no hope whatsoever of ever seeing my country agree with me.

Again, you just stated your position is radical, so no one will ever convince you how wrong you are!

Maybe if you stop your hate speech on all sides, giving people pills for everything, and enforce the laws you have, well just maybe shit will change, but of course you will just want gun owners to give in when the majority of us did nothing wrong!

Quote some of my hate speech for me, Bruce. I mean real hate speech, as actually defined. My words.
Get back to me.

Your Nazi nonsense and I can point it out.

Now point where I spew the NRA narrative word for word.

You support the hateful view of Maxine Waters and Louis Farrakhan, so stop supporting those views...

I'm waiting

I have been waiting for your proof that I spew word for word what the NRA says and yet you never produced it.

Also anyone can search the word Nazi and your opinion of anyone that disagree with you...

Now go hide in a closet!

LOL.
I asked first and am still waiting for my hate speech quotes.

 

[MacTheKnife]

Mental illness is the main cause of most of these mass shootings. As a nation we have failed to address mental illness in a satisfactory or practical mode. What the liberals should attempt is to try and stop allowing mentally ill people to legally acquire weapons....that is doable and something that should be done.

Beyond that mental illness is very common today a and getting even more common. What can be done to help the mentally ill?

 

[EverCurious]

You fucks won't address it, so let me ask again:

Why should I, an innocent American citizen, be punished, and have my constitutional right to defend my life and family removed, due to the actions of a criminal murderer?

^^^ This is the kind of whining that led me to finally say "FUCK THE SECOND AMENDMENT"

Yea, of course my life is forfeit because I don't believe that guns are simple tools and it's the murderers themselves that are the problem.

You twatwaffles whine all day about empathy for victims, but you literally don't have a single scrap of it that's real.

I already said I don't want you disarmed unless you're irresponsible. Are you having a hard time reading today or are you telling me you're irresponsible or a lunatic?

You're the one advocating that the 2nd is "worthless" and shouldn't exist, thereby arguing that because of /your/ personal belief (aka fear of guns) that /I/ am left at the mercy of fucking criminals - and that's not even fucking mentioning the wolves, bears, and moose in my back yard here either.

I should have to "prove" I'm worthy of defending my fucking life because /you/ don't like the 2nd, the NRA, or guns that have existed in this nation basically from the beginning? I fucking think not.

I'm sick of trying to talk to someone who won't respond to my posts, just goes ahead and vomits some gun nutter garbage that probably has no more to do with your reality than it does to what I said.
You aren't adding anything to the conversation whatever.

I'm sick of trying to talk to folks who don't give two fucks about my life and my American right to defend myself from criminals, murderers, rapists, and wild animals. I'm tired of your reality where you vomit communist/fascist nonsense about how I have to /earn/ "your" approval to exercise second amendment rights because /you/ are afraid of guns. Are you afraid of cars, drugs, doctors, and the many other things that kill far more people? Oh I doubt it. All you've actually added to the conversation here is that you do not innately believe that my life, nor anyone else's, is worthy of being defended using a constitutional right that's existed for over a hundred years longer than your /personal/ opinion on guns.

You think you "know better" what /my/ life is worth - namely that /your/ perceived safety through banning guns is more fucking important than my ability to legitimately own the tools that could be used to save my life. Guess what I think woman? You can shove your higher-than-though intellectually void bullshit right up your elitist fascist control freak ass, that's what I think.

 

[Flash]

This confused Libtard bitch lives in a state with most statewide gun control laws in the country and that didn't protect her son one bit so why in the hell is the idiot suggesting more laws? Is she stupid or what?

Sorry for your loss, now go fuck yourself.

 

[EverCurious]

Mental illness is the main cause of most of these mass shootings. As a nation we have failed to address mental illness in a satisfactory or practical mode. What the liberals should attempt is to try and stop allowing mentally ill people to legally acquire weapons....that is doable and something that should be done.

Beyond that mental illness is very common today a and getting even more common. What can be done to help the mentally ill?

Stop ignoring mental illness in order to be PC, that ain't gonna happen though...

 

[OldLady]

This is the new level.....not just people at mass shootings....but people experiencing MORE than one mass shooting.

What bothers me about it is that nobody ever talks about the fact that almost every single one of these combatants were prescribed and on psychotropic drugs. I posted a rather long list around here some place a while back. It was disturbing.

The fact that nobody ever talks about that is very telling to me that people aren't really interested in discussing the more fundamental issue here.

The fact that every other commercial between news breaks is a drug commercial warning of suicidal thoughts and depression if you take their product is also very telling about why we never hear it discussed on those same news outlets. Have to cater to the sponsors. In this case and in many others we've read about, they're more like sponsors of mass murder.

Some of us are suspicious of the affects of big pharmaceutical’s nasty drugs and being the cause or and integral cause of these mass shootings. As you say, the fact that the MSM and our corrupt federal government ignore this, could be proof they are the cause.

Some of us are suspicious of the affects of big pharmaceutical’s nasty drugs and being the cause or and integral cause of these mass shootings. As you say, the fact that the MSM and our corrupt federal government ignore this, could be proof they are the cause.

Yeah. We'll always be in the minority, though. Read my sig : /

Kind of off-topic, but speaking of drugs, you reminded me of something.

I can’t think of the name of it off the top my head, but there is a drug that comes from a plant in South America that basically eliminates free will...and reportedly, when someone is given that drug, they will do whatever you tell them to do, like go to the ATM and empty out their bank account, etc. and then remember none of it the next day.

I wouldn’t be surprised at all if certain corrupt agencies used a drug like that to get some already mentally unstable individual to shoot up a school or nightclub or whatever. These are people with zero scruples and who believe that the ends justify the means. Based on all the research I’ve done over the years, I would put literally nothing past them.

I think that might be a rumor, buttercup. Unless they're talking about truth serum, which just relaxes you so much you spill the beans.
Did you see Jumpin Jack Flash? Whoopee Goldberg gets a hypo full of truth serum; it's hysterical.

 

[MisterBeale]

You fucks won't address it, so let me ask again:

Why should I, an innocent American citizen, be punished, and have my constitutional right to defend my life and family removed, due to the actions of a criminal murderer?

^^^ This is the kind of whining that led me to finally say "FUCK THE SECOND AMENDMENT"

Yea, of course my life is forfeit because I don't believe that guns are simple tools and it's the murderers themselves that are the problem.

You twatwaffles whine all day about empathy for victims, but you literally don't have a single scrap of it that's real.

I already said I don't want you disarmed unless you're irresponsible. Are you having a hard time reading today or are you telling me you're irresponsible or a lunatic?

You're the one advocating that the 2nd is "worthless" and shouldn't exist, thereby arguing that because of /your/ personal belief (aka fear of guns) that /I/ am left at the mercy of fucking criminals - and that's not even fucking mentioning the wolves, bears, and moose in my back yard here either.

I should have to "prove" I'm worthy of defending my fucking life because /you/ don't like the 2nd, the NRA, or guns that have existed in this nation basically from the beginning? I fucking think not.

I'm sick of trying to talk to someone who won't respond to my posts, just goes ahead and vomits some gun nutter garbage that probably has no more to do with your reality than it does to what I said.
You aren't adding anything to the conversation whatever.

You two are having a basic argument over the social contract, i.e., what is a right vs. privilege. You are not listening to her. You would be more comfortable in a constitutional monarchy or a dictatorship, rather than a constitutional republic.

She understands the founding documents, you do not. It has to do with natural law and individual sovereignty.

Right v. Privilege Distinction

". . . Most attempts to reduce immunities to privileges, and then often to withdraw them, are done through exercise of a power to regulate or tax, or at the state level, by exercise of the state ‘‘police powers.’’ Thus, while U.S. and state constitutions might recognize a ‘‘right to keep and bear arms,’’ their legislatures have tried to make it a privilege to acquire or convey title or possession to them. Congress in 1937 adopted legislation that imposed a $200 tax on certain types of firearms, and made it illegal to possess a firearm on which a tax had not been paid, and then delegated the power to executive officials to effectively prohibit the weapons by refusing to accept payment of the tax. This was done in defiance of the ancient principle that a right may not be taxed in a way that imposes an undue burden on its exercise. Congress has since prohibited acquisition or possession of similar weapons manufactured after 1985, under the alleged authority of the Commerce and necessary and proper clauses, on the argument that, following the precedent in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), they have a ‘‘substantial effect on interstate commerce.’’ Some states have argued that, since militia commanders may direct the use or nonuse of weapons by persons in called up militia status, they have the power to prohibit the acquisition or possession of any weapons even for persons not on militia duty, and to not recognize as militia those not called up by officials with the authority to impose penalties for failing to respond to a call-up. This is in conflict, however, with the ancient principle that the authority for militia, that is, defense activity, is not officials or the law, but a threat to public safety and the constitution of the state or United States, and every person aware of such a threat has not only the right but duty to defend against it, alone or in concert with others, regardless of whether officials concur or cooperate. Indeed, the concept contemplates that the officials may become the threat to which a defensive response is required."
Right v. Privilege Distinction

 

[Asclepias]

So I'm a 5'8" 135# 45 year old woman. I can lift two gallons of milk with effort. Why should /I/ be denied the right and ability to defend myself, and my household and family, from criminals with bad intentions - possibly even intent to rape or kill me? Can any one of you anti 2nd amendment folks give me a single decent reason that /I/ should be disarmed and put at the mercy of criminals? Because I am the only kind of person that all your stupid gun laws disarm - not the criminals, not the rapists, not the murderers and mass shooters - but innocent, largely defenseless, people like me.

Of course, I'm quite sure not one of you virtue signaling shit posters have a reason, it's all a game to you idiots. What shit hole kind of life you folks want for American's when you literally take away their means and right to defend themselves from murderers? While also barking for open boarders and unlimited unvetted immigration from criminally destroyed nations. While opening the jail cell doors to let repeat criminals roam the streets. While breaking down the fucking doors of media personalities, beating people with bike locks, breaking car and store windows, and calling everyone you disagree with Nazi's. Trying to ban any alternate opinions or beliefs. Someday you fuckers will realize that you are everything you pretend to hate...

No one is suggesting you be disarmed. Unless you are a loony bird.

 

[OldLady]

^^^ This is the kind of whining that led me to finally say "FUCK THE SECOND AMENDMENT"

Yea, of course my life is forfeit because I don't believe that guns are simple tools and it's the murderers themselves that are the problem.

You twatwaffles whine all day about empathy for victims, but you literally don't have a single scrap of it that's real.

I already said I don't want you disarmed unless you're irresponsible. Are you having a hard time reading today or are you telling me you're irresponsible or a lunatic?

You're the one advocating that the 2nd is "worthless" and shouldn't exist, thereby arguing that because of /your/ personal belief (aka fear of guns) that /I/ am left at the mercy of fucking criminals - and that's not even fucking mentioning the wolves, bears, and moose in my back yard here either.

I should have to "prove" I'm worthy of defending my fucking life because /you/ don't like the 2nd, the NRA, or guns that have existed in this nation basically from the beginning? I fucking think not.

I'm sick of trying to talk to someone who won't respond to my posts, just goes ahead and vomits some gun nutter garbage that probably has no more to do with your reality than it does to what I said.
You aren't adding anything to the conversation whatever.

I'm sick of trying to talk to folks who don't give two fucks about my life and my American right to defend myself from criminals, murderers, rapists, and wild animals. I'm tired of your reality where you vomit communist/fascist nonsense about how I have to /earn/ "your" approval to exercise second amendment rights because /you/ are afraid of guns. Are you afraid of cars, drugs, doctors, and the many other things that kill far more people? Oh I doubt it. All you've actually added to the conversation here is that you do not innately believe that my life, nor anyone else's, is worthy of being defended using a constitutional right that's existed for over a hundred years longer than your /personal/ opinion on guns.

You think you "know better" what /my/ life is worth - namely that /your/ perceived safety through banning guns is more fucking important than my ability to legitimately own the tools that could be used to save my life. Guess what I think woman? You can shove your higher-than-though intellectually void bullshit right up your elitist fascist control freak ass, that's what I think.

 

[MisterBeale]

This confused Libtard bitch lives in a state with most statewide gun control laws in the country and that didn't protect her son one bit so why in the hell is the idiot suggesting more laws? Is she stupid or what?

Sorry for your loss, now go fuck yourself.

Seriously, is that for real?

Wow, I'm glad I threw out my TV.

No wonder folks are questioning if this is real. . . holy shit.


I wish I hadn't seen that. Now I'm skeptical.

 

[Natural Citizen]

No one is suggesting you be disarmed. Unless you are a loony bird.

"Take guns first, go through due process second." - President Trump

 

[Asclepias]

Mental illness is the main cause of most of these mass shootings. As a nation we have failed to address mental illness in a satisfactory or practical mode. What the liberals should attempt is to try and stop allowing mentally ill people to legally acquire weapons....that is doable and something that should be done.

Beyond that mental illness is very common today a and getting even more common. What can be done to help the mentally ill?

Yeah but where is the line drawn? I think its mental illness when you drive a car into a crowd of people because they dont share your beliefs about a statue. Where does mental illness start and radical opinions end?

 

[OldLady]

^^^ This is the kind of whining that led me to finally say "FUCK THE SECOND AMENDMENT"

Yea, of course my life is forfeit because I don't believe that guns are simple tools and it's the murderers themselves that are the problem.

You twatwaffles whine all day about empathy for victims, but you literally don't have a single scrap of it that's real.

I already said I don't want you disarmed unless you're irresponsible. Are you having a hard time reading today or are you telling me you're irresponsible or a lunatic?

You're the one advocating that the 2nd is "worthless" and shouldn't exist, thereby arguing that because of /your/ personal belief (aka fear of guns) that /I/ am left at the mercy of fucking criminals - and that's not even fucking mentioning the wolves, bears, and moose in my back yard here either.

I should have to "prove" I'm worthy of defending my fucking life because /you/ don't like the 2nd, the NRA, or guns that have existed in this nation basically from the beginning? I fucking think not.

I'm sick of trying to talk to someone who won't respond to my posts, just goes ahead and vomits some gun nutter garbage that probably has no more to do with your reality than it does to what I said.
You aren't adding anything to the conversation whatever.

You two are having a basic argument over the social contract, i.e., what is a right vs. privilege. You are not listening to her. You would be more comfortable in a constitutional monarchy or a dictatorship, rather than a constitutional republic.

She understands the founding documents, you do not. It has to do with natural law and individual sovereignty.

Right v. Privilege Distinction

". . . Most attempts to reduce immunities to privileges, and then often to withdraw them, are done through exercise of a power to regulate or tax, or at the state level, by exercise of the state ‘‘police powers.’’ Thus, while U.S. and state constitutions might recognize a ‘‘right to keep and bear arms,’’ their legislatures have tried to make it a privilege to acquire or convey title or possession to them. Congress in 1937 adopted legislation that imposed a $200 tax on certain types of firearms, and made it illegal to possess a firearm on which a tax had not been paid, and then delegated the power to executive officials to effectively prohibit the weapons by refusing to accept payment of the tax. This was done in defiance of the ancient principle that a right may not be taxed in a way that imposes an undue burden on its exercise. Congress has since prohibited acquisition or possession of similar weapons manufactured after 1985, under the alleged authority of the Commerce and necessary and proper clauses, on the argument that, following the precedent in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), they have a ‘‘substantial effect on interstate commerce.’’ Some states have argued that, since militia commanders may direct the use or nonuse of weapons by persons in called up militia status, they have the power to prohibit the acquisition or possession of any weapons even for persons not on militia duty, and to not recognize as militia those not called up by officials with the authority to impose penalties for failing to respond to a call-up. This is in conflict, however, with the ancient principle that the authority for militia, that is, defense activity, is not officials or the law, but a threat to public safety and the constitution of the state or United States, and every person aware of such a threat has not only the right but duty to defend against it, alone or in concert with others, regardless of whether officials concur or cooperate. Indeed, the concept contemplates that the officials may become the threat to which a defensive response is required."
Right v. Privilege Distinction

I hear her. I do not agree with her.

The argument you set forth underscores my argument against the 2nd:
the concept contemplates that the officials may become the threat to which a defensive response is required."
There is no way we're going to do that with our little AR's, Mr. Beale. The military's might has grown quite beyond our ability to stand up to it.

As for Curious, she can start replyng to what I say, rather than what she wants to talk about.

 

[Asclepias]

No one is suggesting you be disarmed. Unless you are a loony bird.

"Take guns first, go through due process second." - President Trump

Drumpf is a loony bird himself so that doesnt count.

 

[EverCurious]

^^^ This is the kind of whining that led me to finally say "FUCK THE SECOND AMENDMENT"

Yea, of course my life is forfeit because I don't believe that guns are simple tools and it's the murderers themselves that are the problem.

You twatwaffles whine all day about empathy for victims, but you literally don't have a single scrap of it that's real.

I already said I don't want you disarmed unless you're irresponsible. Are you having a hard time reading today or are you telling me you're irresponsible or a lunatic?

You're the one advocating that the 2nd is "worthless" and shouldn't exist, thereby arguing that because of /your/ personal belief (aka fear of guns) that /I/ am left at the mercy of fucking criminals - and that's not even fucking mentioning the wolves, bears, and moose in my back yard here either.

I should have to "prove" I'm worthy of defending my fucking life because /you/ don't like the 2nd, the NRA, or guns that have existed in this nation basically from the beginning? I fucking think not.

I'm sick of trying to talk to someone who won't respond to my posts, just goes ahead and vomits some gun nutter garbage that probably has no more to do with your reality than it does to what I said.
You aren't adding anything to the conversation whatever.

You two are having a basic argument over the social contract, i.e., what is a right vs. privilege. You are not listening to her. You would be more comfortable in a constitutional monarchy or a dictatorship, rather than a constitutional republic.

She understands the founding documents, you do not. It has to do with natural law and individual sovereignty.

Right v. Privilege Distinction

". . . Most attempts to reduce immunities to privileges, and then often to withdraw them, are done through exercise of a power to regulate or tax, or at the state level, by exercise of the state ‘‘police powers.’’ Thus, while U.S. and state constitutions might recognize a ‘‘right to keep and bear arms,’’ their legislatures have tried to make it a privilege to acquire or convey title or possession to them. Congress in 1937 adopted legislation that imposed a $200 tax on certain types of firearms, and made it illegal to possess a firearm on which a tax had not been paid, and then delegated the power to executive officials to effectively prohibit the weapons by refusing to accept payment of the tax. This was done in defiance of the ancient principle that a right may not be taxed in a way that imposes an undue burden on its exercise. Congress has since prohibited acquisition or possession of similar weapons manufactured after 1985, under the alleged authority of the Commerce and necessary and proper clauses, on the argument that, following the precedent in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), they have a ‘‘substantial effect on interstate commerce.’’ Some states have argued that, since militia commanders may direct the use or nonuse of weapons by persons in called up militia status, they have the power to prohibit the acquisition or possession of any weapons even for persons not on militia duty, and to not recognize as militia those not called up by officials with the authority to impose penalties for failing to respond to a call-up. This is in conflict, however, with the ancient principle that the authority for militia, that is, defense activity, is not officials or the law, but a threat to public safety and the constitution of the state or United States, and every person aware of such a threat has not only the right but duty to defend against it, alone or in concert with others, regardless of whether officials concur or cooperate. Indeed, the concept contemplates that the officials may become the threat to which a defensive response is required."
Right v. Privilege Distinction

Oh I fully understand, you are playing cover for her. She argues that constitutional "rights" are actually just "privileges" "granted" to us by the government which goes against the very foundation of the bill of rights' existence in the first place - but ya'll will argue it none-the-less because you have no principle foundations when it comes to the actual freedom offered by America's contract with it's people. By such an argument we have no "right" to free speech, no "right" to freedom of the press, no "right" to due process, no "right" to freedom of religion, on and on. The government owns and dictates all under this argument, thus 'freedom' would be an illusion, and folks like her make it abundantly clear that they do not believe in freedom - they believe that they are right and no one else has any rights.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Drumpf is a loony bird himself so that doesnt count.

I was just kind of saying that there's not a dime's worth of difference between a D and an R in Washington.

False paradigm is false.

 

[MisterBeale]

Yea, of course my life is forfeit because I don't believe that guns are simple tools and it's the murderers themselves that are the problem.

You twatwaffles whine all day about empathy for victims, but you literally don't have a single scrap of it that's real.

I already said I don't want you disarmed unless you're irresponsible. Are you having a hard time reading today or are you telling me you're irresponsible or a lunatic?

You're the one advocating that the 2nd is "worthless" and shouldn't exist, thereby arguing that because of /your/ personal belief (aka fear of guns) that /I/ am left at the mercy of fucking criminals - and that's not even fucking mentioning the wolves, bears, and moose in my back yard here either.

I should have to "prove" I'm worthy of defending my fucking life because /you/ don't like the 2nd, the NRA, or guns that have existed in this nation basically from the beginning? I fucking think not.

I'm sick of trying to talk to someone who won't respond to my posts, just goes ahead and vomits some gun nutter garbage that probably has no more to do with your reality than it does to what I said.
You aren't adding anything to the conversation whatever.

You two are having a basic argument over the social contract, i.e., what is a right vs. privilege. You are not listening to her. You would be more comfortable in a constitutional monarchy or a dictatorship, rather than a constitutional republic.

She understands the founding documents, you do not. It has to do with natural law and individual sovereignty.

Right v. Privilege Distinction

". . . Most attempts to reduce immunities to privileges, and then often to withdraw them, are done through exercise of a power to regulate or tax, or at the state level, by exercise of the state ‘‘police powers.’’ Thus, while U.S. and state constitutions might recognize a ‘‘right to keep and bear arms,’’ their legislatures have tried to make it a privilege to acquire or convey title or possession to them. Congress in 1937 adopted legislation that imposed a $200 tax on certain types of firearms, and made it illegal to possess a firearm on which a tax had not been paid, and then delegated the power to executive officials to effectively prohibit the weapons by refusing to accept payment of the tax. This was done in defiance of the ancient principle that a right may not be taxed in a way that imposes an undue burden on its exercise. Congress has since prohibited acquisition or possession of similar weapons manufactured after 1985, under the alleged authority of the Commerce and necessary and proper clauses, on the argument that, following the precedent in Wickard v. Filburn (1942), they have a ‘‘substantial effect on interstate commerce.’’ Some states have argued that, since militia commanders may direct the use or nonuse of weapons by persons in called up militia status, they have the power to prohibit the acquisition or possession of any weapons even for persons not on militia duty, and to not recognize as militia those not called up by officials with the authority to impose penalties for failing to respond to a call-up. This is in conflict, however, with the ancient principle that the authority for militia, that is, defense activity, is not officials or the law, but a threat to public safety and the constitution of the state or United States, and every person aware of such a threat has not only the right but duty to defend against it, alone or in concert with others, regardless of whether officials concur or cooperate. Indeed, the concept contemplates that the officials may become the threat to which a defensive response is required."
Right v. Privilege Distinction

I hear her. I do not agree with her.

The argument you set forth underscores my argument against the 2nd:
the concept contemplates that the officials may become the threat to which a defensive response is required."
There is no way we're going to do that with our little AR's, Mr. Beale. The military's might has grown quite beyond our ability to stand up to it.

As for Curious, she can start replyng to what I say, rather than what she wants to talk about.

So remind me again what happened in Vietnam? Or in Iraq?

Why have we been at war for nearly two decades?

Folks don't buy what you are selling.

That Georgetown professor I referred you to even told you that your opinion is wrong, why do you keep typing it out on these forums?

 

[EverCurious]

Yea, of course my life is forfeit because I don't believe that guns are simple tools and it's the murderers themselves that are the problem.

You twatwaffles whine all day about empathy for victims, but you literally don't have a single scrap of it that's real.

I already said I don't want you disarmed unless you're irresponsible. Are you having a hard time reading today or are you telling me you're irresponsible or a lunatic?

You're the one advocating that the 2nd is "worthless" and shouldn't exist, thereby arguing that because of /your/ personal belief (aka fear of guns) that /I/ am left at the mercy of fucking criminals - and that's not even fucking mentioning the wolves, bears, and moose in my back yard here either.

I should have to "prove" I'm worthy of defending my fucking life because /you/ don't like the 2nd, the NRA, or guns that have existed in this nation basically from the beginning? I fucking think not.

I'm sick of trying to talk to someone who won't respond to my posts, just goes ahead and vomits some gun nutter garbage that probably has no more to do with your reality than it does to what I said.
You aren't adding anything to the conversation whatever.

I'm sick of trying to talk to folks who don't give two fucks about my life and my American right to defend myself from criminals, murderers, rapists, and wild animals. I'm tired of your reality where you vomit communist/fascist nonsense about how I have to /earn/ "your" approval to exercise second amendment rights because /you/ are afraid of guns. Are you afraid of cars, drugs, doctors, and the many other things that kill far more people? Oh I doubt it. All you've actually added to the conversation here is that you do not innately believe that my life, nor anyone else's, is worthy of being defended using a constitutional right that's existed for over a hundred years longer than your /personal/ opinion on guns.

You think you "know better" what /my/ life is worth - namely that /your/ perceived safety through banning guns is more fucking important than my ability to legitimately own the tools that could be used to save my life. Guess what I think woman? You can shove your higher-than-though intellectually void bullshit right up your elitist fascist control freak ass, that's what I think.

View attachment 227793

lawl as typical, you virtue signaling twats lose/can't handle any argument with your bullshit opinion/beliefs and turn immediately to personal attacks - and that's the end of any discussion from you fascists - from here out it's all insults (I think you're on post three of that shit flinging dribble now aren't ya?) Impressed I am not.

 

[EverCurious]

Drumpf is a loony bird himself so that doesnt count.

I was just kind of saying that there's not a dime's worth of difference between a D and an R in Washington.

False paradigm is false.

I think this was true in the past, not so much anymore though...