Firearm ownership...

[pwjohn]

Yes foul wind. We can all agree that you're a pos

We? Interesting. Who is "we"? You and your wee-wee?

Sorry you don't have the spine to to call me a piece of shit, motherfucking asshole or anything else. You epitomize the perception all far LW males are spineless cowards who will vote to send our troops to war "since they volunteered" then spit on them as warmongers when they come home.

Whatever foul wind.

 

[2aguy]

A good thing... Because it's an absolute right.

For black gun owners, bearing arms is a civil rights issue

Wrong.

The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute.’

Although fundamental and inalienable, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

Yeah...we get it...criminals and the dangerously memtally I'll can't have guns...

What Heller doesn't say is that "not unlimited" does not mean you can restrict the Right to the point it exists in name only...

You guys never get that point....

 

[2aguy]

A good thing... Because it's an absolute right.

For black gun owners, bearing arms is a civil rights issue

When blacks asserted their right to bear arms in California in the 60s, the Right immediately introduced a bill to ban open carry.

No..California democrats did......Reagan was trying to get along........and he was wrong......so we don't want to keep making the same mistake....

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

A good thing... Because it's an absolute right.

For black gun owners, bearing arms is a civil rights issue

Excellent article.


6,000,000 Jews would be alive today BUT FOR the fact that Hitler disarmed the population.

The Jews who survived the longer were those at the Warsaw Ghetto who had access to firearms.

Never again

.

Also wrong.

The ignorant notion that civilians with only small arms could contend with a modern military is as sophomoric as it is ridiculous.

 

[g5000]

A good thing... Because it's an absolute right.

For black gun owners, bearing arms is a civil rights issue

When blacks asserted their right to bear arms in California in the 60s, the Right immediately introduced a bill to ban open carry.

No..California democrats did......Reagan was trying to get along........and he was wrong......so we don't want to keep making the same mistake....

Hey dumbshit. See post 19.

 

[Iceweasel]

So you need a big old AK to fight off an out of control government ?

Then why complain about theses guys shooting police ? They are fighting an out of control government .

Cops aren't the problem, Timmy. And an armed citizenry is like a country having nukes, you don't want to mess with them. An unarmed population are not citizens, they are subjects.

 

[Iceweasel]

A good thing... Because it's an absolute right.

For black gun owners, bearing arms is a civil rights issue

Excellent article.


6,000,000 Jews would be alive today BUT FOR the fact that Hitler disarmed the population.

The Jews who survived the longer were those at the Warsaw Ghetto who had access to firearms.

Never again

.

Also wrong.

The ignorant notion that civilians with only small arms could contend with a modern military is as sophomoric as it is ridiculous.

Of course it is but the military won't go against the citizens for several reasons. They are citizens too and they have family that are. Most lean towards the conservative side. Every time I here libs bring this up I am reminded of how clueless they are.

 

[g5000]

So you need a big old AK to fight off an out of control government ?

Here's the thing about a right: You don't have to prove a NEED to exercise it. IT'S A RIGHT.

 

[2aguy]

A good thing... Because it's an absolute right.

For black gun owners, bearing arms is a civil rights issue

When blacks asserted their right to bear arms in California in the 60s, the Right immediately introduced a bill to ban open carry.

No..California democrats did......Reagan was trying to get along........and he was wrong......so we don't want to keep making the same mistake....

Hey dumbshit. See post 19.

Asswipe.....Reagan only became a Republican in 1962....that act was passed in 1967...the stink of being a democrat doesn't dissipate over night..........it takes a while for sanity to take hold of a former democrats brain.......

 

[2aguy]

A good thing... Because it's an absolute right.

For black gun owners, bearing arms is a civil rights issue

Excellent article.


6,000,000 Jews would be alive today BUT FOR the fact that Hitler disarmed the population.

The Jews who survived the longer were those at the Warsaw Ghetto who had access to firearms.

Never again

.

Also wrong.

The ignorant notion that civilians with only small arms could contend with a modern military is as sophomoric as it is ridiculous.

Of course it is but the military won't go against the citizens for several reasons. They are citizens too and they have family that are. Most lean towards the conservative side. Every time I here libs bring this up I am reminded of how clueless they are.

He better hurry up and tell that to the Afgans and the Iraqis....since the most powerful military in the world is now leaving their countries after being driven off by barbarians with rifles......

 

[Divine Wind]

Actually..they registered guns in the Weimar Republic because the Germans believed that only the police and military needed weapons of war.........then the nazis used those registration lists to disarm Jews and their pollock all ene,ones....

So we are agree it was a selective disarmament based on religion but requiring national registration in order to enact.

 

[Divine Wind]

Whatever foul wind.

Translation: I'm a fucking spineless coward with nothing to add but want to carry over a vendetta because I disagree with you.

Have at it, pwjohn. I take on spineless cowards like you every fucking day here. You don't have LW PH moderators to back you up here. So do your best to whine since it's clear you don't have the intellect to have a reasonable discussion.

 

[Divine Wind]

The ignorant notion that civilians with only small arms could contend with a modern military is as sophomoric as it is ridiculous.

A common liberal lie. We're a nation of laws and armed citizens. We're also a nation of volunteer military personnel. The Liberals wanted it and they got it. Now we have a nation of 2% military career professionals who are more beholding to their service than anti-military Liberals.

Do you really think our all-volunteer military are just robots who follow orders? Don't you know the oath they take? If you did, do you think they'd follow the orders of a LW anti-Constitution asshole or a pro-Constitution General or Admiral?

Be Ready To Raise Your Right Hand | Military.com
Everyone who joins the military has one thing in common, they must swear-in by repeating the enlisted or officer Oath.

The Oath of enlistment is something that every service member must promise and adhere to for his/her entire military career. From the Oath, you can see that you will be defending the Constitution - not a person. Discipline and accepting orders is sworn to. Finally, you vow to face the UCMJ (Uniform Code of Military Justice) should any disputes arise.


The Oath of Enlistment (for enlisted):

"I, _____, do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; and that I will obey the orders of the President of the United States and the orders of the officers appointed over me, according to regulations and the Uniform Code of Military Justice. So help me God." ​

The Oath of Office (for officers):

"I, _____ (SSAN), having been appointed an officer in the _____ (Military Branch) of the United States, as indicated above in the grade of _____ do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign or domestic, that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same; that I take this obligation freely, without any mental reservations or purpose of evasion; and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office upon which I am about to enter; So help me God." ​

Before you raise your right hand, make sure you understand what you are swearing or attesting to. The oath of enlistment should not be taken lightly, you will be bound by it for the next 4 to 6 years at a minimum.

 

[Rustic]

A good thing... Because it's an absolute right.

For black gun owners, bearing arms is a civil rights issue

Excellent article.


6,000,000 Jews would be alive today BUT FOR the fact that Hitler disarmed the population.

The Jews who survived the longer were those at the Warsaw Ghetto who had access to firearms.

Never again

.

Also wrong.

The ignorant notion that civilians with only small arms could contend with a modern military is as sophomoric as it is ridiculous.

Hey fuck face, military, police and fire support the second admedement fully. They would never go against the population on the issue. The fucked up federal government has zero morale credibility and its fuck ups like you that think you know your ass from a hole in the ground.

 

[Divine Wind]

Hey fuck face, military, police and fire support the second admedement fully. They would never go against the population on the issue. The fucked up federal government has zero morale credibility and its fuck ups like you that think you know your ass from a hole in the ground.

I don't agree with you 100%, heck not even 75%, but WTF, I agree with you over fuck face!

 

[Flash]

[

The Second Amendment right is not ‘absolute.’

Although fundamental and inalienable, it is subject to reasonable restrictions by government:

“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.”

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER

You are the one that is confused.

When a right specifically says "shall not be infringed" that comes as close to absolute as it gets.

Justice Scalia is not around to define what he meant by reasonable restrictions but we do know that you Moon Bats don't have a clue what the word reasonable means.

If you are confused about that I can give you several example of the oppressive shit the bat shit crazy Moon Bats have done that the assholes think is reasonable.

You simply cannot trust the Moon Bats with the definition of reasonable because they are crazy and their agenda is to not be reasonable. Even Crooked Hillary says she doesn't think the Second Amendment is a valid individual right and can be legislated away.

 

[Anathema]

So you need a big old AK to fight off an out of control government ?

Then why complain about theses guys shooting police ? They are fighting an out of control government .

LOL. The police are one of the few functional parts of our Government. Any individual or group that cannot obey the law or follow the orders of LEOs needs to understand they are likely to be met with legitimate force to make them comply.

 

[buckeye45_73]

A good thing... Because it's an absolute right.

For black gun owners, bearing arms is a civil rights issue

When blacks asserted their right to bear arms in California in the 60s, the Right immediately introduced a bill to ban open carry.

Link?

 

[Divine Wind]

Patriot protecting his neighborhood.

Nothing wrong with that. In fact, if more blacks armed themselves and drove out the gang-bangers, life would be better for all peaceful citizens.

 

[oldsoul]

A good thing... Because it's an absolute right.

For black gun owners, bearing arms is a civil rights issue

Excellent article.


6,000,000 Jews would be alive today BUT FOR the fact that Hitler disarmed the population.

The Jews who survived the longer were those at the Warsaw Ghetto who had access to firearms.

Never again

.

Also wrong.

The ignorant notion that civilians with only small arms could contend with a modern military is as sophomoric as it is ridiculous.

As of Jan. 31, there were close to 1.4 million people serving in the U.S. armed forces, according to the latest numbers from the Defense Manpower Data Center, a body of the Department of Defense. That means that 0.4 percent of the American population is active military personnel.Mar 19, 2015 fivethirtyeight.com

The United States population on July 4, 2015 was: 321,442,019 Population Clock

According to the Congressional Research Service, there are roughly twice as many guns per capita in the United States as there were in 1968: more than 300 million guns in all. Gun sales have increased in recent years.Jan 5, 2016 www.npr.org/2016/01/05/462017461/guns-in-america-by-the-numbers

So, it's "ridiculous" and "sophomoric" to believe that 321 million people (granted some are too young to fight), carrying more than 300 million guns cannot defend themselves against 1.4 million soldiers? Now, granted, the military is far better equipped, and far better trained. However, how many of the 300 million or so are former military. Also, how many of the military will actually fire on civilians (...only one in five US soldiers answered in the affirmative, that they would fire on US citizens while in the process of confiscating their firearms. For officers, the number was as low as one in twenty.http://www.whiteoutpress.com/articl...g-if-soldiers-would-fire-on-americans-back/)?

I see it as not "ridiculous" nor "sophomoric", once you look at the facts.