12 Dead in Mass Shooting at So.Cal Bar

[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

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.

I'm not giving her any cover, I'm explaining to her why she doesn't understand your POV, she believes that our rights should be converted into privileges and refuses to listen to why they should not be because she has listened to, literally decades of corporate fear propaganda to the contrary.

 

[EverCurious]

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.

I'm not giving her any cover, I'm explaining to her why she doesn't understand your POV, she believes that our rights should be converted into privileges and refuses to listen to why they should not be because she has listened to, literally decades of corporate fear propaganda to the contrary.

Fair enough, a pointless gesture really, but as I said before, you're welcome to keep offering your hand out to be mauled by the rabid fools who just don't actually give a fuck.

 

[MisterBeale]

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...

If the Democrats pass a Constitutional Amendment modifying the 2nd, and the Senate approves, and Trump himself has indicated that he supports such a thing, if he passes it on to the states, will you wake up?

 

[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...

If the Democrats pass a Constitutional Amendment modifying the 2nd, and the Senate approves, and Trump himself has indicated that he supports such a thing, if he passes it on to the states, will you wake up?

What are you smoking? I mean I don't do drugs, but that's some powerful shit if you think the majority of the GOPs and Trump are anti-2nd lawl

 

[Flash]

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.

I think I explained this to you yesterday. You didn't take good notes, did you?

History is full of examples of where a lesser armed citizenry has overcome government might.

There may even be where the many in the military join the citizens. We saw that happen in Russia in 1917, didn't we?

One thing about it. Without the right to keep and bear arms we can't guarantee "the security of the free state". The ballot box sure as hell won't stop tyranny.

 

[MisterBeale]

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...

If the Democrats pass a Constitutional Amendment modifying the 2nd, and the Senate approves, and Trump himself has indicated that he supports such a thing, if he passes it on to the states, will you wake up?

What are you smoking? I mean I don't do drugs, but that's some powerful shit if you think the majority of the GOPs and Trump are anti-2nd lawl

Naw, I just could see them taking a very moderated view, much like OldLady. A sort of, it's not a right, it's a privilege that needs to be regulated now. . . .


I watch the conversations on this site, I see what is going on. I can follow that mood of the nation. The elites are playing all these fools like a fiddle. They are smarter than all of you. They know what they are doing.



Did you know that the Supreme Court ruled that once a person has entered into the U.S. they are protected by the U.S. Constitution? That means 11 million illegal immigrants have the right to bear arms.

Did you know that?

 

[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...

If the Democrats pass a Constitutional Amendment modifying the 2nd, and the Senate approves, and Trump himself has indicated that he supports such a thing, if he passes it on to the states, will you wake up?

What are you smoking? I mean I don't do drugs, but that's some powerful shit if you think the majority of the GOPs and Trump are anti-2nd lawl

Naw, I just could see them taking a very moderated view, much like OldLady. A sort of, it's not a right, it's a privilege that needs to be regulated now. . . .


I watch the conversations on this site, I see what is going on. I can follow that mood of the nation. The elites are playing all these fools like a fiddle. They are smarter than all of you. They know what they are doing.



Did you know that the Supreme Court ruled that once a person has entered into the U.S. they are protected by the U.S. Constitution? That means 11 million illegal immigrants have the right to bear arms.

Did you know that?

Clearly you haven't seen my prior posts on how the nation is fucked... Such examples are just one of the many that it will fail.

 

[OldLady]

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?

I have no idea what this has to do with Vietnam or Iraq, or how that relates to the 2nd amendment, if that's what you're talking about. I don't agree with everyone just because they are professors at Georgetown. I know you think highly of him. That's fine by me but quit trying to shove him down my throat.

 

[MisterBeale]

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...

If the Democrats pass a Constitutional Amendment modifying the 2nd, and the Senate approves, and Trump himself has indicated that he supports such a thing, if he passes it on to the states, will you wake up?

What are you smoking? I mean I don't do drugs, but that's some powerful shit if you think the majority of the GOPs and Trump are anti-2nd lawl

Naw, I just could see them taking a very moderated view, much like OldLady. A sort of, it's not a right, it's a privilege that needs to be regulated now. . . .


I watch the conversations on this site, I see what is going on. I can follow that mood of the nation. The elites are playing all these fools like a fiddle. They are smarter than all of you. They know what they are doing.



Did you know that the Supreme Court ruled that once a person has entered into the U.S. they are protected by the U.S. Constitution? That means 11 million illegal immigrants have the right to bear arms.

Did you know that?

Clearly you haven't seen my prior posts on how the nation is fucked... Such examples are just one of the many that it will fail.

Okay, so you agree, it isn't completely beyond the scope of imagination that the Dems would give Trump his well in exchange for sending a modified ERA & 2nd Amendment to the states?

You might think that is "fucked," but in the minds of some, this would be an ultimate victory. . . as they would just halt construction once they get into office, as of course, you can't really repeal those Amendments once they are there. . .

 

[MisterBeale]

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?

I have no idea what this has to do with Vietnam or Iraq, or how that relates to the 2nd amendment, if that's what you're talking about. I don't agree with everyone just because they are professors at Georgetown. I know you think highly of him. That's fine by me but quit trying to shove him down my throat.

The folks in both places faced our army and caused them problems.

What I am getting at here, is that this is just your opinion. It doesn't have any bearing on reality. I don't know why you hold this opinion. You just give it to us like it is fact, with no support.

Yet all the historical examples are just the reverse.

 

[EverCurious]

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

If the Democrats pass a Constitutional Amendment modifying the 2nd, and the Senate approves, and Trump himself has indicated that he supports such a thing, if he passes it on to the states, will you wake up?

What are you smoking? I mean I don't do drugs, but that's some powerful shit if you think the majority of the GOPs and Trump are anti-2nd lawl

Naw, I just could see them taking a very moderated view, much like OldLady. A sort of, it's not a right, it's a privilege that needs to be regulated now. . . .


I watch the conversations on this site, I see what is going on. I can follow that mood of the nation. The elites are playing all these fools like a fiddle. They are smarter than all of you. They know what they are doing.



Did you know that the Supreme Court ruled that once a person has entered into the U.S. they are protected by the U.S. Constitution? That means 11 million illegal immigrants have the right to bear arms.

Did you know that?

Clearly you haven't seen my prior posts on how the nation is fucked... Such examples are just one of the many that it will fail.

Okay, so you agree, it isn't completely beyond the scope of imagination that the Dems would give Trump his well in exchange for sending a modified ERA & 2nd Amendment to the states?

You might think that is "fucked," but in the minds of some, this would be an ultimate victory. . . as they would just halt construction once they get into office, as of course, you can't really repeal those Amendments once they are there. . .

The only thing beyond the scope of imagination is that this nation will continue to exist as a free nation...

 

[MisterBeale]

If the Democrats pass a Constitutional Amendment modifying the 2nd, and the Senate approves, and Trump himself has indicated that he supports such a thing, if he passes it on to the states, will you wake up?

What are you smoking? I mean I don't do drugs, but that's some powerful shit if you think the majority of the GOPs and Trump are anti-2nd lawl

Naw, I just could see them taking a very moderated view, much like OldLady. A sort of, it's not a right, it's a privilege that needs to be regulated now. . . .


I watch the conversations on this site, I see what is going on. I can follow that mood of the nation. The elites are playing all these fools like a fiddle. They are smarter than all of you. They know what they are doing.



Did you know that the Supreme Court ruled that once a person has entered into the U.S. they are protected by the U.S. Constitution? That means 11 million illegal immigrants have the right to bear arms.

Did you know that?

Clearly you haven't seen my prior posts on how the nation is fucked... Such examples are just one of the many that it will fail.

Okay, so you agree, it isn't completely beyond the scope of imagination that the Dems would give Trump his well in exchange for sending a modified ERA & 2nd Amendment to the states?

You might think that is "fucked," but in the minds of some, this would be an ultimate victory. . . as they would just halt construction once they get into office, as of course, you can't really repeal those Amendments once they are there. . .

The only thing beyond the scope of imagination is that this nation will continue to exist as a free nation...

One could even question whether we are free right now.

Do you know I even have arguments with friends on-line that try to convince me that we should give up our fundamental natural rights? Who could have brainwashed them into thinking this is a good idea?

 

[Asclepias]

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

If the Democrats pass a Constitutional Amendment modifying the 2nd, and the Senate approves, and Trump himself has indicated that he supports such a thing, if he passes it on to the states, will you wake up?

What are you smoking? I mean I don't do drugs, but that's some powerful shit if you think the majority of the GOPs and Trump are anti-2nd lawl

Naw, I just could see them taking a very moderated view, much like OldLady. A sort of, it's not a right, it's a privilege that needs to be regulated now. . . .


I watch the conversations on this site, I see what is going on. I can follow that mood of the nation. The elites are playing all these fools like a fiddle. They are smarter than all of you. They know what they are doing.



Did you know that the Supreme Court ruled that once a person has entered into the U.S. they are protected by the U.S. Constitution? That means 11 million illegal immigrants have the right to bear arms.

Did you know that?

Clearly you haven't seen my prior posts on how the nation is fucked... Such examples are just one of the many that it will fail.

Okay, so you agree, it isn't completely beyond the scope of imagination that the Dems would give Trump his well in exchange for sending a modified ERA & 2nd Amendment to the states?

You might think that is "fucked," but in the minds of some, this would be an ultimate victory. . . as they would just halt construction once they get into office, as of course, you can't really repeal those Amendments once they are there. . .

In order to modify an amendment it has to be repealed. That wont happen. Most liberals have no desire to repeal the 2nd.

 

[EverCurious]

What are you smoking? I mean I don't do drugs, but that's some powerful shit if you think the majority of the GOPs and Trump are anti-2nd lawl

Naw, I just could see them taking a very moderated view, much like OldLady. A sort of, it's not a right, it's a privilege that needs to be regulated now. . . .


I watch the conversations on this site, I see what is going on. I can follow that mood of the nation. The elites are playing all these fools like a fiddle. They are smarter than all of you. They know what they are doing.



Did you know that the Supreme Court ruled that once a person has entered into the U.S. they are protected by the U.S. Constitution? That means 11 million illegal immigrants have the right to bear arms.

Did you know that?

Clearly you haven't seen my prior posts on how the nation is fucked... Such examples are just one of the many that it will fail.

Okay, so you agree, it isn't completely beyond the scope of imagination that the Dems would give Trump his well in exchange for sending a modified ERA & 2nd Amendment to the states?

You might think that is "fucked," but in the minds of some, this would be an ultimate victory. . . as they would just halt construction once they get into office, as of course, you can't really repeal those Amendments once they are there. . .

The only thing beyond the scope of imagination is that this nation will continue to exist as a free nation...

One could even question whether we are free right now.

Do you know I even have arguments with friends on-line that try to convince me that we should give up our fundamental natural rights? Who could have brainwashed them into thinking this is a good idea?

communists, socialists, elitists, teachers, parents, friends, politicians, media talking-heads, movie stars, comedians...

That's the problem when you don't have any fundamental principles to underlie your belief system(s), you'll believe anything. And the really scary part, is that such beliefs will turn on a dime at random; it's utter chaos and it's impossible to have a stable nation when it's set upon a crumbling wobbly foundation like that. But the GOP played nice and let them do it so here we are. Every single one of us fucked, it's really just a matter of if one knows it yet or not...

 

[buttercup]

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.

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.

Right? Btw, everyone should read the comments on that video Flash posted. I’m actually really glad to see more and more people are waking up and beginning to see what is going on.

I know I’ve posted this tons of times on other threads, but people need to know that propaganda is legal.

 

[MisterBeale]

 

[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.

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.

Right? Btw, everyone should read the comments on that video Flash posted. I’m actually really glad to see more and more people are waking up and beginning to see what is going on.

I know I’ve posted this tons of times on other threads, but people need to know that propaganda is legal.

I love that her attitude toward gun control used to be identical to OldLady

 

[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.

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.

It’s a real drug. There are a couple mini documentaries on it, I’ll see if I can find one and post it later when I have time. As for whether all the stories about it are true, I don’t know. But even if it’s half as bad as what is claimed, it still could be abused in the way I mentioned.

And no, I didn’t see Jumping Jack Flash but now I want to!

 

[OldLady]

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.

You are a hypocrite and a liar and I could care less what you have to say at this point, you gutter mouthed bitch.
You can shove your higher-than-though intellectually void bullshit right up your elitist fascist control freak ass,
That is YOUR insult and there were plenty of others. Nothing I said comes close to your offensiveness or bile.
I'm sick and tired of telling you that I didn't propose taking guns from responsible people, which you have consistently ignored and instead tried rolling over me with your diatribe.

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?

I have no idea what this has to do with Vietnam or Iraq, or how that relates to the 2nd amendment, if that's what you're talking about. I don't agree with everyone just because they are professors at Georgetown. I know you think highly of him. That's fine by me but quit trying to shove him down my throat.

The folks in both places faced our army and caused them problems.

What I am getting at here, is that this is just your opinion. It doesn't have any bearing on reality. I don't know why you hold this opinion. You just give it to us like it is fact, with no support.

Yet all the historical examples are just the reverse.

Thank you for explaining, Mr. Beale.

 

[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.

It’s a real drug. There are a couple mini documentaries on it, I’ll see if I can find one and post it later when I have time. As for whether all the stories about it are true, I don’t know. But even if it’s half as bad as what is claimed, it still could be abused in the way I mentioned.

And no, I didn’t see Jumping Jack Flash but now I want to!

It will brighten your day, I promise.