Do you notice how gun nuts never talk about any limits to gun ownership?

[mudwhistle]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any ****** carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Oh really?

The problem with gun control is Socialists always take it too far.......just like they're taking abortion too far.

I advocate "Common Sense Gun Regulations"

Your "common sense" may not be my common sense. Therefore, we apply the 2nd Amendment.

Again, what part of the 2nd amendment applies to the States and Local Governments who are the ones that make the real laws?

All states and local governments are bound by the Constitution.

No......the federal government is. Enforcing the Constitution is up the the president, but the president still has to do what the courts say. This is what the courts are for. This is why Democrats are trying to take over the Supreme Court and all Federal Courts.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The 2nd Amendment is, among other things, a hedge against tyranny.

Imagine what could possibly happen to a disarmed -- or a lesser armed or an under armed -- citizenry if a President (Insert name here,) had or was to have an urge to become a real life dictator.

Unless of course the gun owning contingent sides with a tyrant assuming power in this country Lee.....

~S~

We don’t have to worry about that. Liberals don’t support gun ownership and any tyrant would come from the Left.

Right wing tryants don't exist....?
~S~

OF course they do. But the ones that claim their are right wing always mistake them for Socialists. There really isn't any difference between an RW Tyrant and a LW tyrant only on how they got there. Once they get there, they are neither right nor left, they are just Dictators.

For instance, let's take two of the same time. Stalin started out as a Socialist. You can call it Communists if you wish. But he stripped away every elses power until he, alone, wielded all the power, hence became a dictator. Hitler started out as a Fascist Right. He stripped away all the other peoples power until, he alone, had all the power and became a dictator. The RW is screaming about Venzuela right now. Actually, Socialism is working. The Dictator that usurped power is in serious trouble and the socialists are taking power through elected process. Moduro screwed up and didn't fire his entire government fast enough and didn't instill enough fear into his courts. He didn't learn well enough from an extreme RW Fascist; Mussolini who wrote the book. It doesn't matter if starts out as from the right or left, when you allow it get that far, it never ends up good.

The US has two documents that prevent a Tyrant from seizing control WE have the Constitution of the United States (lump in the States Constitutions here as well) and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. In the last 2 years, both have been tested and both have held. Let's not beat around the bush on this one, Trump would be a potential Tyrant without these two things. Congress and the Supreme Court have slapped him down and the Military has ignored him on more than one occasion just like they are supposed to. Congress needs to do it a bit more. Trump was lulled into believing that he WAS a dictator. But he's just going to have to learn that he been demoted to the lowly position of President of the United States (Oh what a Horror).

The RW Tyrant usually comes when the Capitalist seize control. Capitalism is not a form of government anymore than Socialism is. Both of those are Economic Methods. A Government uses both to grow. One day it might lean from one side to the other and then swing back when it needs to. The US had done that and has been extremely successful until the last 40 years. I look for it to swing back and forth again and again. Our Grand Fathers understood that but it appears we have forgotten those lessons.

Just remember, it doesn't matter if the tyrant comes from the right or the left, in the end, he's still just a tyrant doing what a tyant does and he's going to make a lot of peoples lives miserable and cause death and mayhem until he's taken out of power usually by force. The US is lucky, we get the chance to remove our tyrants every 4 years without firing a shot. Let's hope in 2020, it goes without blood letting.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Oh really?

The problem with gun control is Socialists always take it too far.......just like they're taking abortion too far.

I advocate "Common Sense Gun Regulations"

Your "common sense" may not be my common sense. Therefore, we apply the 2nd Amendment.

Again, what part of the 2nd amendment applies to the States and Local Governments who are the ones that make the real laws?

All states and local governments are bound by the Constitution.

No......the federal government is. Enforcing the Constitution is up the the president, but the president still has to do what the courts say. This is what the courts are for. This is why Democrats are trying to take over the Supreme Court and all Federal Courts.

Wrong. You WANT the Supreme Court to have those powers. They don't have. They can only rule on what is already in the Constitution. They cannot make new laws. Yes, in the past (1800s and back) they did but most of those have been overruled.

 

[martybegan]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any ****** carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any ****** carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Oh really?

The problem with gun control is Socialists always take it too far.......just like they're taking abortion too far.

I advocate "Common Sense Gun Regulations"

Your "common sense" may not be my common sense. Therefore, we apply the 2nd Amendment.

Again, what part of the 2nd amendment applies to the States and Local Governments who are the ones that make the real laws?

All states and local governments are bound by the Constitution.

Which gives the rights of gun regulation to the States and Locals through due process. When dealing with the 2nd amendment, it limits the Federal Government. It doesn't give any rights. It only means that the Federal Government can't take any rights on it's own. But the States can determine what is a right and what is not.

 

[martybegan]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any ****** carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Oh really?

The problem with gun control is Socialists always take it too far.......just like they're taking abortion too far.

Exactly. New York could have just ensured abortion rights as they currently existed, in case Roe got overturned. Instead they went with the full gonzo NARAL/NOW craziness that isn't supported by anyone except the most virulent abortion rights people.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any ****** carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Oh really?

The problem with gun control is Socialists always take it too far.......just like they're taking abortion too far.

Exactly. New York could have just ensured abortion rights as they currently existed, in case Roe got overturned. Instead they went with the full gonzo NARAL/NOW craziness that isn't supported by anyone except the most virulent abortion rights people.

Some Congresses allow just about anything to be considered and voted on no matter how silly or destructive. I think this is just another one of these. It had no hopes of being passed and was cheered on by the extremists on the left AND the extremists on the right for a different reason. It should have never been allowed to reach the floor. But we don't make the rules in the State Congresses and shouldn't.

 

[pismoe]

My friend who is a republican, showed me a pic of her grandchild, a 7 year old dressed in fatigues, with a weapon, a rifle. She thought it was cute, I thought it was disgusting.

---------------------------------- i figure that its really NONE of you business Penny .

 

[imawhosure]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any ****** carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go?

DO YOU have any idea what a giant pain in the ass it is to legally own a fully automatic weapon ?
And none have been legally sold in the US since 1986 YOU CAN NOT BUY A NEW ONE making the ones that are around pricey as in the 10 grand and up range.those of us who could afford them probably do not need to rob a bank .
I have no problem with people carrying them . THEY should be COMPLETELY legal again and new production should be offered to the general public.

Back in the bad ol days in NYC i carried a 38 snub nose with me everywhere .Thankfully I Never had to use it ..its even been in and out of the empire state building i don't know how many times.I used to do biz with a manufacturer that had offices in the building . I had to stop carrying the city got safer but the laws got super draconian ...if i tried that shit today id be immediately tackled after i hit the security check and THROWN IN JAIL .

pssst DO you know what bernie getzs biggest mistake was ?
he turned himself in!
thats the city and the city has really good police response times BUT once you're out in rural areas police times can run ten /15 /20 minutes
what do ya do in pallokaville USA if someones trying to get through your door ?
YA blow a hole in him

If you want a permit today in NYC ya better be a celebrity, a billionaire ,or someone who knows someone ..if i was in Brooklyn right now i could probably have you looking at a wide variety of semi autos in under an hour ...no paper work needed BUT walk the streets with it at your own risk cause you're now a criminal for trying to exercise your constitutional right .

Today i live down south AND where i live now people open carry their sidearms in the supermarket... gas stations ,everywhere ! unless a sign is posted like at the DMV .NO one flinches or pisses themselves over an inanimate object that cant hurt you .

Where i live now you cant carry without a permit BUT i can own and buy as many guns and rifles as i want WITHOUT A PERMIT AND the castle doctrine extends to my car
meaning i can keep a gun locked in the glove box.

I get where you're coming from. You wanna save the children and if you can save ONE LITTLE AMERICAN LIFE its worth it ...Unless theyre killed by an illegal immigrant then maybe not so much. which is just another democRAT hypocrisy thats not lost on free thinkers

If it makes you feel any better I wouldn't issue this lady a ccp

is lady the proper pro noun in this situation ?
he kinda loses the lady like mystique when he wants to take it out to the parking lot and brawl like a drunk 21 year old suffering from acute " toxic masculinity "
and hes white to ...most definitely a racist

Seriously though I highly encourage the adults in everyones family to properly educate their sons and daughters on the proper and safe use of firearms along with the local and state laws that would apply to them . I totally encourage single young adult women to take some classes & hit the range Because unlike a Hollywood movie a 100 lb female is no match for muscle bound 220 lb man animal with bad intentions .

With a fire arm all of a sudden the 100 lb woman is now equals with a 220 lb animal...gun rights are indeed womens rights .

the real question is why are you a misogynistic sexist who hates women?

in good news for the people the list climbs

South Dakota is the latest state to allow concealed handguns to be carried without a permit
By Joe Sterling, CNN
Updated 2142 GMT (0542 HKT) February 1, 2019
Gov. Kristi Noem addressing lawmakers last month in Pierre, South Dakota.
(CNN)It's now legal to carry a concealed handgun without a permit in South Dakota.
In signing the legislation Thursday, Gov. Kristi Noem made her state the latest to allow the practice. It's the first bill she's signed into law since she took office last month.
The legislation, which will go into effect on July 1, is designed to "protect the Second Amendment rights of South Dakotans by allowing constitutional carry," she said.
"More than 230 years ago, the Founding Fathers of our country penned the Constitution that has since laid the framework for centuries of policies," the Republican governor said.

"They so firmly believed in the importance of the freedom to bear arms that they enshrined it into the Constitution's Second Amendment."
Gov. Kristi Noem signs her first bill into law on Thursday, allowing people to carry concealed pistols without a permit in South Dakota.


Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho, Kansas, Maine, Mississippi, Missouri, New Hampshire, North Dakota, Vermont, West Virginia and Wyoming also do not require a permit to carry a concealed weapon.

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any ****** carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

You had a direction to start this OP.

I disagreed with it, but at least you were headed in a viable direction.

Then you lost focus.

Here, maybe this will help.

The more guns, the better.

We can only shoot one at a time, so you are worried about nothing on the number of guns we have.

And you should be glad we have as big and as bad ass weapons as we do.

The 2nd Amendment is, among other things, a hedge against tyranny.

Imagine what could possibly happen to a disarmed -- or a lesser armed or an under armed -- citizenry if a President (Insert name here,) had or was to have an urge to become a real life dictator.

You hate Trump?

Imagine not having lots of bad assed weapons to deter his ambitions if he woke up and wanted to become King.

Imagine not having lots of bad assed weapons to deter the ambitions of a President Hillary Clinton if she somehow succeeded in deposing DJT and soon after being sworn in she woke up and wanted to become Queen.

The 2nd Amendment gives us recourse.

Tell us when human nature becomes antiquated and out of date.

That is when I will give another moments thought to the 2nd Amendment, which exists to protect us from human nature.

Give some people the power to make us all subjects and they will try to do so.

Obama tried it and all he could manage was politicizing every department of the Federal government.

Just think if there had been no 2A!

Remember when he bought billions and billions of rounds of ammo for the Federal government?

He caused a months long shortage on the civilian market for all calibers of ammo.

And it is my belief he must have thought about preparing the govt. to go to war on the patriots who were going to stand up for our rights if he succeeded in trying a full blown power grab.

Liberals are NOTORIOUS for not thinking past their imnediate objective.

It is a built in handicap most of them share.

They only think about the problem of stopping random mass shootings.

But those casualty rates would be dwarfed by the numbers of patriots and Liberals who would be killed trying to regain sovereignty of our government (or help the Usurper in Chief) in case a would-be despot tried to take advantage of our disarmed state by seizing all govt power and becoming a dictator.

A terrible war would break out and millions would die.

Liberals cant imagine a guy like Obama trying anything like that. But they can imagine Trump doing it, I'd bet.

But human nature does not change.

The 2nd Amendment is our last line of defense against dictatorship and should never be made less potent to stop random mass shootings unless we would court a much worse destiny brought on by Liberal short sightedness.

The 2nd Amendment gives us recourse.

You and I consider tyranny differently.

Billy Baloney worries about what somebody MIGHT do with a legal gun.

Meanwhile; back at the ranch, he supports that after a baby is born, they can kill it. What kind of position is that? If to kill the baby they shot it, would he then be OK with guns?

Talk about Nazi's, geezus……….these people have gone into the realm of infanticide!

If you sit down and ponder their positions from a thinking and not emotional point of view, they are totally inconsistent, and are instantly outted as Phony-E-Baloneys; which is why the OP is known far and wide as------->Billy Baloney-)

 

[martybegan]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any ****** carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Oh really?

The problem with gun control is Socialists always take it too far.......just like they're taking abortion too far.

Exactly. New York could have just ensured abortion rights as they currently existed, in case Roe got overturned. Instead they went with the full gonzo NARAL/NOW craziness that isn't supported by anyone except the most virulent abortion rights people.

Some Congresses allow just about anything to be considered and voted on no matter how silly or destructive. I think this is just another one of these. It had no hopes of being passed and was cheered on by the extremists on the left AND the extremists on the right for a different reason. It should have never been allowed to reach the floor. But we don't make the rules in the State Congresses and shouldn't.

I actually live in New York so my concern is legit. What happened here is that the Dems finally took control of the State Senate, thus the flood of progressive legislation that had previously been held up by the aforementioned Republican controlled Senate.

 

[Penelope]

My friend who is a republican, showed me a pic of her grandchild, a 7 year old dressed in fatigues, with a weapon, a rifle. She thought it was cute, I thought it was disgusting.

---------------------------------- i figure that its really NONE of you business Penny .

You are right, and I didn't say anything, but I thought it. I wonder what he grows up to be , a mass shooter?

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Oh really?

The problem with gun control is Socialists always take it too far.......just like they're taking abortion too far.

I advocate "Common Sense Gun Regulations"

Your "common sense" may not be my common sense. Therefore, we apply the 2nd Amendment.

Again, what part of the 2nd amendment applies to the States and Local Governments who are the ones that make the real laws?

All states and local governments are bound by the Constitution.

No......the federal government is. Enforcing the Constitution is up the the president, but the president still has to do what the courts say. This is what the courts are for. This is why Democrats are trying to take over the Supreme Court and all Federal Courts.

Splitting hairs. Supremacy clause. There is wiggle room, but when push comes to shove, the feds prevail over the states where a mandate exists.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Oh really?

The problem with gun control is Socialists always take it too far.......just like they're taking abortion too far.

I advocate "Common Sense Gun Regulations"

Your "common sense" may not be my common sense. Therefore, we apply the 2nd Amendment.

Again, what part of the 2nd amendment applies to the States and Local Governments who are the ones that make the real laws?

All states and local governments are bound by the Constitution.

Which gives the rights of gun regulation to the States and Locals through due process. When dealing with the 2nd amendment, it limits the Federal Government. It doesn't give any rights. It only means that the Federal Government can't take any rights on it's own. But the States can determine what is a right and what is not.

Only so long as such determinations do not impede the exercise of the Constitutional right. See DC v. Heller, for example.

 

[pismoe]

My friend who is a republican, showed me a pic of her grandchild, a 7 year old dressed in fatigues, with a weapon, a rifle. She thought it was cute, I thought it was disgusting.

---------------------------------- i figure that its really NONE of you business Penny .

You are right, and I didn't say anything, but I thought it. I wonder what he grows up to be , a mass shooter?

---------------------------------------------- naw , he'll probably grow up to be a decent guy just like me . The only difference between the kid and me is that we of my generation didn't have 'CAMO' Penny .

 

[LordBrownTrout]

I advocate "Common Sense Gun Regulations"

Your "common sense" may not be my common sense. Therefore, we apply the 2nd Amendment.

Again, what part of the 2nd amendment applies to the States and Local Governments who are the ones that make the real laws?

All states and local governments are bound by the Constitution.

No......the federal government is. Enforcing the Constitution is up the the president, but the president still has to do what the courts say. This is what the courts are for. This is why Democrats are trying to take over the Supreme Court and all Federal Courts.

Splitting hairs. Supremacy clause. There is wiggle room, but when push comes to shove, the feds prevail over the states where a mandate exists.

We saw that when the supreme court rewrote the law in ocare and forced everyone to purchase a product or be penalized. The penalty is gone now.

 

[BluesLegend]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go?

Oh good lord (face palm). Fine, when a Dem loser commits a crime with a gun DEATH PENALTY, summary execution no appeal there's gun control that works. Deal?

 

[Claudette]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any ****** carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

You had a direction to start this OP.

I disagreed with it, but at least you were headed in a viable direction.

Then you lost focus.

Here, maybe this will help.

The more guns, the better.

We can only shoot one at a time, so you are worried about nothing on the number of guns we have.

And you should be glad we have as big and as bad ass weapons as we do.

The 2nd Amendment is, among other things, a hedge against tyranny.

Imagine what could possibly happen to a disarmed -- or a lesser armed or an under armed -- citizenry if a President (Insert name here,) had or was to have an urge to become a real life dictator.

You hate Trump?

Imagine not having lots of bad assed weapons to deter his ambitions if he woke up and wanted to become King.

Imagine not having lots of bad assed weapons to deter the ambitions of a President Hillary Clinton if she somehow succeeded in deposing DJT and soon after being sworn in she woke up and wanted to become Queen.

The 2nd Amendment gives us recourse.

Tell us when human nature becomes antiquated and out of date.

That is when I will give another moments thought to the 2nd Amendment, which exists to protect us from human nature.

Give some people the power to make us all subjects and they will try to do so.

Obama tried it and all he could manage was politicizing every department of the Federal government.

Just think if there had been no 2A!

Remember when he bought billions and billions of rounds of ammo for the Federal government?

He caused a months long shortage on the civilian market for all calibers of ammo.

And it is my belief he must have thought about preparing the govt. to go to war on the patriots who were going to stand up for our rights if he succeeded in trying a full blown power grab.

Liberals are NOTORIOUS for not thinking past their imnediate objective.

It is a built in handicap most of them share.

They only think about the problem of stopping random mass shootings.

But those casualty rates would be dwarfed by the numbers of patriots and Liberals who would be killed trying to regain sovereignty of our government (or help the Usurper in Chief) in case a would-be despot tried to take advantage of our disarmed state by seizing all govt power and becoming a dictator.

A terrible war would break out and millions would die.

Liberals cant imagine a guy like Obama trying anything like that. But they can imagine Trump doing it, I'd bet.

But human nature does not change.

The 2nd Amendment is our last line of defense against dictatorship and should never be made less potent to stop random mass shootings unless we would court a much worse destiny brought on by Liberal short sightedness.

The 2nd Amendment gives us recourse.

You are oh so right and the FF were more worried about a tyrannical Govt. then they were about anyone trying to invade.

They were very smart long thinking men. The 2nd will always be in the Constitution and it a damned good thing it is.

 

[22lcidw]

The 2nd Amendment is, among other things, a hedge against tyranny.

Imagine what could possibly happen to a disarmed -- or a lesser armed or an under armed -- citizenry if a President (Insert name here,) had or was to have an urge to become a real life dictator.

Unless of course the gun owning contingent sides with a tyrant assuming power in this country Lee.....

~S~

We don’t have to worry about that. Liberals don’t support gun ownership and any tyrant would come from the Left.

Right wing tryants don't exist....?
~S~

You want to get rid of tyrants? Get rid of all of the feudal families in this nation that have power? That includes the Cuomo family in New York and the Barbour family in Mississippi and the Landreu family in Louisiana and the Murkowski family in Alaska and so many more. National, regional, state wide, local and city families have power. Nancy Pelosi is one of them. Tyrants!!!!

 

[Penelope]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any ****** carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

You had a direction to start this OP.

I disagreed with it, but at least you were headed in a viable direction.

Then you lost focus.

Here, maybe this will help.

The more guns, the better.

We can only shoot one at a time, so you are worried about nothing on the number of guns we have.

And you should be glad we have as big and as bad ass weapons as we do.

The 2nd Amendment is, among other things, a hedge against tyranny.

Imagine what could possibly happen to a disarmed -- or a lesser armed or an under armed -- citizenry if a President (Insert name here,) had or was to have an urge to become a real life dictator.

You hate Trump?

Imagine not having lots of bad assed weapons to deter his ambitions if he woke up and wanted to become King.

Imagine not having lots of bad assed weapons to deter the ambitions of a President Hillary Clinton if she somehow succeeded in deposing DJT and soon after being sworn in she woke up and wanted to become Queen.

The 2nd Amendment gives us recourse.

Tell us when human nature becomes antiquated and out of date.

That is when I will give another moments thought to the 2nd Amendment, which exists to protect us from human nature.

Give some people the power to make us all subjects and they will try to do so.

Obama tried it and all he could manage was politicizing every department of the Federal government.

Just think if there had been no 2A!

Remember when he bought billions and billions of rounds of ammo for the Federal government?

He caused a months long shortage on the civilian market for all calibers of ammo.

And it is my belief he must have thought about preparing the govt. to go to war on the patriots who were going to stand up for our rights if he succeeded in trying a full blown power grab.

Liberals are NOTORIOUS for not thinking past their imnediate objective.

It is a built in handicap most of them share.

They only think about the problem of stopping random mass shootings.

But those casualty rates would be dwarfed by the numbers of patriots and Liberals who would be killed trying to regain sovereignty of our government (or help the Usurper in Chief) in case a would-be despot tried to take advantage of our disarmed state by seizing all govt power and becoming a dictator.

A terrible war would break out and millions would die.

Liberals cant imagine a guy like Obama trying anything like that. But they can imagine Trump doing it, I'd bet.

But human nature does not change.

The 2nd Amendment is our last line of defense against dictatorship and should never be made less potent to stop random mass shootings unless we would court a much worse destiny brought on by Liberal short sightedness.

The 2nd Amendment gives us recourse.

You are oh so right and the FF were more worried about a tyrannical Govt. then they were about anyone trying to invade.

They were very smart long thinking men. The 2nd will always be in the Constitution and it a damned good thing it is.

you got one now, so what are your doing about it?? Nothing.

 

[Penelope]

The 2nd Amendment is, among other things, a hedge against tyranny.

Imagine what could possibly happen to a disarmed -- or a lesser armed or an under armed -- citizenry if a President (Insert name here,) had or was to have an urge to become a real life dictator.

Unless of course the gun owning contingent sides with a tyrant assuming power in this country Lee.....

~S~

We don’t have to worry about that. Liberals don’t support gun ownership and any tyrant would come from the Left.

Right wing tryants don't exist....?
~S~

You want to get rid of tyrants? Get rid of all of the feudal families in this nation that have power? That includes the Cuomo family in New York and the Barbour family in Mississippi and the Landreu family in Louisiana and the Murkowski family in Alaska and so many more. National, regional, state wide, local and city families have power. Nancy Pelosi is one of them. Tyrants!!!!

Us people voted for Dems and Pelosi is the speaker of the house, to bully down the tyrannical Trump.