Gun Control and Logic

[Daryl Hunt]

Although I hesitate to gainsay a heavyweight thinker like Ted Nugent................isnt it strange that every country with gun control is safer than the US ?

Lol
Na, not really
The only problem this country has with violence is in progressive controlled urban areas With strict gun control laws, you fat sack of shit.

And how do you know he's a fat sack of shit? You back to your old habits again? I thought they had a restraining order against that.

 

[Tommy Tainant]

Although I hesitate to gainsay a heavyweight thinker like Ted Nugent................isnt it strange that every country with gun control is safer than the US ?

Really?
Compare and contrast the gun laws and gun-related crime in Mexico and the US.

Mexico is a backward place that suffers from Americas addiction to narcotics. Why dont you find a country in Western Europe?

 

[M14 Shooter]

It specifically bans the Colt AR-15. Since it specifically names it, it's not going to be affect bu "Other" semi auto rifle definitions. This is why that law did not apply to the Mini-14 because it wasn't specifically named and did not meet 2 or the requirements to be listed as an assault rifle. Even today, you can't use the generic term of "Assault Rifle" in the law. It has to specifically spell out the exact weapon that you are either regulating or banning. Such as "AR-15 and it's various clones".

And yet AR15s, sans bayonet lug and flash hider, were manufactured and sold, freely and legally, during the 1994 AWB.
How do you not know this?

They weren't sold. If they were, they were sold on the black market.

I love it when you double down on being wrong:

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia
Gun control advocates and gun rights advocates have referred to at least some of the features outlined in the federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 as cosmetic. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action and the Violence Policy Center both used the term in publications that were released by them in September 2004, when the ban expired.[14][15] In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said that "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced."[16

So.... did you just lie, or did you make a statement of abject ignorance?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Although I hesitate to gainsay a heavyweight thinker like Ted Nugent................isnt it strange that every country with gun control is safer than the US ?

Really?
Compare and contrast the gun laws and gun-related crime in Mexico and the US.

Most of Mexico doesn't have ANY gun crimes.

You failed the assignment, stolen valor.
Try again.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Although I hesitate to gainsay a heavyweight thinker like Ted Nugent................isnt it strange that every country with gun control is safer than the US ?

Really?
Compare and contrast the gun laws and gun-related crime in Mexico and the US.

Mexico is a backward place that suffers from Americas addiction to narcotics. Why dont you find a country in Western Europe?

I'm sorry....you said:
....every country with gun control is safer than the US....
Did you lie, or speak from ignorance?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The letter of the law? According to the latest high court rulings I am just follow that.

Incorrect.
You manufacture from whole cloth interpretations that do not exist and are not supported by rulings from the high court.

Since I can and already have cited my support/....
.

^^^
A lie. You are fully aware of the fact you cannot cite anything from any USSC ruling that supports any position you have on guns, and that you have not done so.
As for proving you wrong:

Permanent injunction against 10 round magazine ban? In California? Excellent....
Still waiting for your intelligent and honest response - hopefully you won't run away.
Again.
Cupcake.

Hey Fruitcake, we already went over this. The Judge that wrote the dissertation on this made up a phrase, the Heller Test.

This is a lie, as explained in the post you refuse to honestly and intelligently respond to.

You are fully aware of the fact you cannot cite anything from any USSC ruling that supports any position you have on guns, and that you have not done so.
As for proving you wrong:

Read the law. All of it and don't do a 2boy and just read the parts you like. When you are done, you ain't going to like things so much.

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-1521.pdf

https://www.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.mad.186305/gov.uscourts.mad.186305.93.0.pdf

There is more, a lot more but those are the 3 biggies. And each one is built on the other. In the past, I went in and dug up each and every point but I don't feel the need to do so every month or so because you gunnutters hope that everyone with a lick of sense will forget how to or lose the ability to read. Or just forget what they have already learned. Now, read the whole of all 3 but remember, Scalia is very, very long winded and the worst punishment I can think of punishing you is to have you read his dissertations.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It specifically bans the Colt AR-15. Since it specifically names it, it's not going to be affect bu "Other" semi auto rifle definitions. This is why that law did not apply to the Mini-14 because it wasn't specifically named and did not meet 2 or the requirements to be listed as an assault rifle. Even today, you can't use the generic term of "Assault Rifle" in the law. It has to specifically spell out the exact weapon that you are either regulating or banning. Such as "AR-15 and it's various clones".

And yet AR15s, sans bayonet lug and flash hider, were manufactured and sold, freely and legally, during the 1994 AWB.
How do you not know this?

They weren't sold. If they were, they were sold on the black market.

I love it when you double down on being wrong:

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia
Gun control advocates and gun rights advocates have referred to at least some of the features outlined in the federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 as cosmetic. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action and the Violence Policy Center both used the term in publications that were released by them in September 2004, when the ban expired.[14][15] In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said that "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced."[16

So.... did you just lie, or did you make a statement of abject ignorance?

Yes, some of the guns. But it does not single out the AR-15 because it couldn't because the AR-15 was specifically named by name and model. Others were not and you could remove the cosmetics from them and they were deemed legal. Keep squirming. The more you squirm the more it becomes apparent maybe we need the law back in place. Even without the Ban, there was some pretty damned good points in it that we need today.

 

[progressive hunter]

ITS NOT AN interpretation, ITS THE LETTER OF THE LAW,,,

WHAT YOURE PEDDLING IS INTERPITAION

The letter of the law? According to the latest high court rulings I am just follow that. You are just taking 5 words and trying to use it for any and all situations. That only worked until 1851 when the Walker Colt was introduced and things became more complex than those 5 works could handle. Now, if you want to just use those 5 words, turn in all your modern weapons and only have flintlocks and single shot cap and ball guns. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue in the 21st century.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,is a lot more than 5 words,,,

and since you follow the courts interpretation and not the written constitution it is you that is wrong not me

this is the problem that arises when discussing it with someone that doesnt understand the original intent of the 2nd

Until 1851, that phrase worked out very well. The weapons didn't change a whole lot before then and the civilians were on par with the military. Plus, the Military was severely limited in numbers where any one state could defeat the Federal Government. In 1851, the Walker Colt was invented and a whole new generation fo weapons followed including weapons far economically out of reach of the average citizen. The Civil War in 1861 changed a lot of things. At the end of the Civil War, the dumping of the Remingtons and Colts onto the civilian population that turned west also had a profound affect, hence the beginning of the forced Gun Regulations of the Western Towns and Cities. Now we had fully automatic weapons and Artillery instead of just rifles and canons. WWI upped the anti in a big, big way. But you know all this but you are conveniently leaving that out because it blows your argument completely out of the water.

Your Cult is losing ground fast and we are going back to being a much, much safer place to live. It sucks to be you when the Public takes charge at the Voting Booth.

at least your honest about being anti 2nd amendment,,,,

Are you trying to speak for me once again? Are you trying to get inside my head? Maybe you should spend some time in my head. Especially late at night when I am trying to get to sleep. You won't like it. But until you do, you have no idea what I am thinking. And lying about what I am thinking like you do is just plain dishonest.

no thank you,,,

and I was talking about what youre doing not thinking ,,,because I cant read minds, but I can see what is right in front of me and your actions here are anti 2nd amendment,,,

 

[Daryl Hunt]

The letter of the law? According to the latest high court rulings I am just follow that. You are just taking 5 words and trying to use it for any and all situations. That only worked until 1851 when the Walker Colt was introduced and things became more complex than those 5 works could handle. Now, if you want to just use those 5 words, turn in all your modern weapons and only have flintlocks and single shot cap and ball guns. Meanwhile, the rest of us will continue in the 21st century.

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,is a lot more than 5 words,,,

and since you follow the courts interpretation and not the written constitution it is you that is wrong not me

this is the problem that arises when discussing it with someone that doesnt understand the original intent of the 2nd

Until 1851, that phrase worked out very well. The weapons didn't change a whole lot before then and the civilians were on par with the military. Plus, the Military was severely limited in numbers where any one state could defeat the Federal Government. In 1851, the Walker Colt was invented and a whole new generation fo weapons followed including weapons far economically out of reach of the average citizen. The Civil War in 1861 changed a lot of things. At the end of the Civil War, the dumping of the Remingtons and Colts onto the civilian population that turned west also had a profound affect, hence the beginning of the forced Gun Regulations of the Western Towns and Cities. Now we had fully automatic weapons and Artillery instead of just rifles and canons. WWI upped the anti in a big, big way. But you know all this but you are conveniently leaving that out because it blows your argument completely out of the water.

Your Cult is losing ground fast and we are going back to being a much, much safer place to live. It sucks to be you when the Public takes charge at the Voting Booth.

at least your honest about being anti 2nd amendment,,,,

Are you trying to speak for me once again? Are you trying to get inside my head? Maybe you should spend some time in my head. Especially late at night when I am trying to get to sleep. You won't like it. But until you do, you have no idea what I am thinking. And lying about what I am thinking like you do is just plain dishonest.

no thank you,,,

and I was talking about what youre doing not thinking ,,,because I cant read minds, but I can see what is right in front of me and your actions here are anti 2nd amendment,,,

I am for a 2nd amendment. But I know it's long on the tooth and needs to be updated. And it's needed it for many decades if not at least a century. The real question should be, how can we update it to today and still keep it meaningful.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Incorrect.
You manufacture from whole cloth interpretations that do not exist and are not supported by rulings from the high court.

Since I can and already have cited my support/....
.

^^^
A lie. You are fully aware of the fact you cannot cite anything from any USSC ruling that supports any position you have on guns, and that you have not done so.
As for proving you wrong:

Permanent injunction against 10 round magazine ban? In California? Excellent....
Still waiting for your intelligent and honest response - hopefully you won't run away.
Again.
Cupcake.

Hey Fruitcake, we already went over this. The Judge that wrote the dissertation on this made up a phrase, the Heller Test.

This is a lie, as explained in the post you refuse to honestly and intelligently respond to.

You are fully aware of the fact you cannot cite anything from any USSC ruling that supports any position you have on guns, and that you have not done so.
As for proving you wrong:

Read the law. All of it

I have. My statement stands,
You have nothing, stolen valor, and you know it - else, you'd cite text.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Since I can and already have cited my support/....
.

^^^
A lie. You are fully aware of the fact you cannot cite anything from any USSC ruling that supports any position you have on guns, and that you have not done so.
As for proving you wrong:

Permanent injunction against 10 round magazine ban? In California? Excellent....
Still waiting for your intelligent and honest response - hopefully you won't run away.
Again.
Cupcake.

Hey Fruitcake, we already went over this. The Judge that wrote the dissertation on this made up a phrase, the Heller Test.

This is a lie, as explained in the post you refuse to honestly and intelligently respond to.

You are fully aware of the fact you cannot cite anything from any USSC ruling that supports any position you have on guns, and that you have not done so.
As for proving you wrong:

Read the law. All of it

I have. My statement stands,
You have nothing, stolen valor, and you know it - else, you'd cite text.

Since you are proven to be too lazy to prove yourself right, you resort to insulting ones Military Career. Well, you keep working so that I can keep receiving that Military Retirement money. And when you can walk down the street with freedom, you can thank me and others like me that made a career out of protecting your tired, sick perverted little ass.

 

[progressive hunter]

THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED,,,is a lot more than 5 words,,,

and since you follow the courts interpretation and not the written constitution it is you that is wrong not me

this is the problem that arises when discussing it with someone that doesnt understand the original intent of the 2nd

Until 1851, that phrase worked out very well. The weapons didn't change a whole lot before then and the civilians were on par with the military. Plus, the Military was severely limited in numbers where any one state could defeat the Federal Government. In 1851, the Walker Colt was invented and a whole new generation fo weapons followed including weapons far economically out of reach of the average citizen. The Civil War in 1861 changed a lot of things. At the end of the Civil War, the dumping of the Remingtons and Colts onto the civilian population that turned west also had a profound affect, hence the beginning of the forced Gun Regulations of the Western Towns and Cities. Now we had fully automatic weapons and Artillery instead of just rifles and canons. WWI upped the anti in a big, big way. But you know all this but you are conveniently leaving that out because it blows your argument completely out of the water.

Your Cult is losing ground fast and we are going back to being a much, much safer place to live. It sucks to be you when the Public takes charge at the Voting Booth.

at least your honest about being anti 2nd amendment,,,,

Are you trying to speak for me once again? Are you trying to get inside my head? Maybe you should spend some time in my head. Especially late at night when I am trying to get to sleep. You won't like it. But until you do, you have no idea what I am thinking. And lying about what I am thinking like you do is just plain dishonest.

no thank you,,,

and I was talking about what youre doing not thinking ,,,because I cant read minds, but I can see what is right in front of me and your actions here are anti 2nd amendment,,,

I am for a 2nd amendment. But I know it's long on the tooth and needs to be updated. And it's needed it for many decades if not at least a century. The real question should be, how can we update it to today and still keep it meaningful.

LONG ON THE TOOTH???,,its two sentences,,,
like I said at least youre honest about being anti 2nd,,,

 

[M14 Shooter]

It specifically bans the Colt AR-15. Since it specifically names it, it's not going to be affect bu "Other" semi auto rifle definitions. This is why that law did not apply to the Mini-14 because it wasn't specifically named and did not meet 2 or the requirements to be listed as an assault rifle. Even today, you can't use the generic term of "Assault Rifle" in the law. It has to specifically spell out the exact weapon that you are either regulating or banning. Such as "AR-15 and it's various clones".

And yet AR15s, sans bayonet lug and flash hider, were manufactured and sold, freely and legally, during the 1994 AWB.
How do you not know this?

They weren't sold. If they were, they were sold on the black market.

I love it when you double down on being wrong:

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia
Gun control advocates and gun rights advocates have referred to at least some of the features outlined in the federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 as cosmetic. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action and the Violence Policy Center both used the term in publications that were released by them in September 2004, when the ban expired.[14][15] In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said that "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced."[16
So.... did you just lie, or did you make a statement of abject ignorance?

Yes, some of the guns. But it does not single out the AR-15 because it couldn't because the AR-15 was specifically named by name and model.

Why do you choose to lie about this?
See the gun on the right? Bought new, and legally, December 2000. How do I know? I bought it.
How is it legal? No bayonet lug, no flash hider.

Now, tell us, stolen valor - other than to comply with the 1994, law, why would DPMS remove those features?
Answer: They wouldn't.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Until 1851, that phrase worked out very well. The weapons didn't change a whole lot before then and the civilians were on par with the military. Plus, the Military was severely limited in numbers where any one state could defeat the Federal Government. In 1851, the Walker Colt was invented and a whole new generation fo weapons followed including weapons far economically out of reach of the average citizen. The Civil War in 1861 changed a lot of things. At the end of the Civil War, the dumping of the Remingtons and Colts onto the civilian population that turned west also had a profound affect, hence the beginning of the forced Gun Regulations of the Western Towns and Cities. Now we had fully automatic weapons and Artillery instead of just rifles and canons. WWI upped the anti in a big, big way. But you know all this but you are conveniently leaving that out because it blows your argument completely out of the water.

Your Cult is losing ground fast and we are going back to being a much, much safer place to live. It sucks to be you when the Public takes charge at the Voting Booth.

at least your honest about being anti 2nd amendment,,,,

Are you trying to speak for me once again? Are you trying to get inside my head? Maybe you should spend some time in my head. Especially late at night when I am trying to get to sleep. You won't like it. But until you do, you have no idea what I am thinking. And lying about what I am thinking like you do is just plain dishonest.

no thank you,,,

and I was talking about what youre doing not thinking ,,,because I cant read minds, but I can see what is right in front of me and your actions here are anti 2nd amendment,,,

I am for a 2nd amendment. But I know it's long on the tooth and needs to be updated. And it's needed it for many decades if not at least a century. The real question should be, how can we update it to today and still keep it meaningful.

LONG ON THE TOOTH???,,its two sentences,,,
like I said at least youre honest about being anti 2nd,,,

And because it's only two sentences, that makes it long on the tooth. Things were much simplier in 1791 but equally dangerous for other reasons. Those two sentences were directed by the Bill of Rights at preventing a King from taking over once again. We are WAY past that these days. But we have a lot of other issues that we need to address that those two sentences no longer can cover. In fact, the first 2/3rds of it are completely obsolete. The only part that is not is "The Right to Bear Arms" And as I stated before, that is just 5 words. And all the rest needs to be thrown out completely and we need to dwell on just those 5 words.

 

[M14 Shooter]

^^^
A lie. You are fully aware of the fact you cannot cite anything from any USSC ruling that supports any position you have on guns, and that you have not done so.
As for proving you wrong:

Permanent injunction against 10 round magazine ban? In California? Excellent....
Still waiting for your intelligent and honest response - hopefully you won't run away.
Again.
Cupcake.

Hey Fruitcake, we already went over this. The Judge that wrote the dissertation on this made up a phrase, the Heller Test.

This is a lie, as explained in the post you refuse to honestly and intelligently respond to.

You are fully aware of the fact you cannot cite anything from any USSC ruling that supports any position you have on guns, and that you have not done so.
As for proving you wrong:

Read the law. All of it

I have. My statement stands,
You have nothing, stolen valor, and you know it - else, you'd cite text.

Since you are proven to be too lazy to prove yourself right...

I -have- proven myself right, stolen valor - you simply aren't honest enough to admit it.
When you can cite text that supports your position, let us know. I won't wait up.

 

[M14 Shooter]

at least your honest about being anti 2nd amendment,,,,

Are you trying to speak for me once again? Are you trying to get inside my head? Maybe you should spend some time in my head. Especially late at night when I am trying to get to sleep. You won't like it. But until you do, you have no idea what I am thinking. And lying about what I am thinking like you do is just plain dishonest.

no thank you,,,

and I was talking about what youre doing not thinking ,,,because I cant read minds, but I can see what is right in front of me and your actions here are anti 2nd amendment,,,

I am for a 2nd amendment. But I know it's long on the tooth and needs to be updated. And it's needed it for many decades if not at least a century. The real question should be, how can we update it to today and still keep it meaningful.

LONG ON THE TOOTH???,,its two sentences,,,
like I said at least youre honest about being anti 2nd,,,

And because it's only two sentences, that makes it long on the tooth.

Said no honest, intelligent person, ever.

 

[progressive hunter]

at least your honest about being anti 2nd amendment,,,,

Are you trying to speak for me once again? Are you trying to get inside my head? Maybe you should spend some time in my head. Especially late at night when I am trying to get to sleep. You won't like it. But until you do, you have no idea what I am thinking. And lying about what I am thinking like you do is just plain dishonest.

no thank you,,,

and I was talking about what youre doing not thinking ,,,because I cant read minds, but I can see what is right in front of me and your actions here are anti 2nd amendment,,,

I am for a 2nd amendment. But I know it's long on the tooth and needs to be updated. And it's needed it for many decades if not at least a century. The real question should be, how can we update it to today and still keep it meaningful.

LONG ON THE TOOTH???,,its two sentences,,,
like I said at least youre honest about being anti 2nd,,,

And because it's only two sentences, that makes it long on the tooth. Things were much simplier in 1791 but equally dangerous for other reasons. Those two sentences were directed by the Bill of Rights at preventing a King from taking over once again. We are WAY past that these days. But we have a lot of other issues that we need to address that those two sentences no longer can cover. In fact, the first 2/3rds of it are completely obsolete. The only part that is not is "The Right to Bear Arms" And as I stated before, that is just 5 words. And all the rest needs to be thrown out completely and we need to dwell on just those 5 words.

"THE RIGHT OF THE PEOPLE TO KEEP AND BEAR ARMS SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED" is 14 words not 5

you bailed last time I asked, but what would you like it to say???

 

[Daryl Hunt]

It specifically bans the Colt AR-15. Since it specifically names it, it's not going to be affect bu "Other" semi auto rifle definitions. This is why that law did not apply to the Mini-14 because it wasn't specifically named and did not meet 2 or the requirements to be listed as an assault rifle. Even today, you can't use the generic term of "Assault Rifle" in the law. It has to specifically spell out the exact weapon that you are either regulating or banning. Such as "AR-15 and it's various clones".

And yet AR15s, sans bayonet lug and flash hider, were manufactured and sold, freely and legally, during the 1994 AWB.
How do you not know this?

They weren't sold. If they were, they were sold on the black market.

I love it when you double down on being wrong:

Federal Assault Weapons Ban - Wikipedia
Gun control advocates and gun rights advocates have referred to at least some of the features outlined in the federal Assault Weapon Ban of 1994 as cosmetic. The NRA Institute for Legislative Action and the Violence Policy Center both used the term in publications that were released by them in September 2004, when the ban expired.[14][15] In May 2012, the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence said that "the inclusion in the list of features that were purely cosmetic in nature created a loophole that allowed manufacturers to successfully circumvent the law by making minor modifications to the weapons they already produced."[16
So.... did you just lie, or did you make a statement of abject ignorance?

Yes, some of the guns. But it does not single out the AR-15 because it couldn't because the AR-15 was specifically named by name and model.

Why do you choose to lie about this?
See the gun on the right? Bought new, and legally, December 2000. How do I know? I bought it.
How is it legal? No bayonet lug, no flash hider.

Now, tell us, stolen valor - other than to comply with the 1994, law, why would DPMS remove those features?
Answer: They wouldn't.

View attachment 254767

Okay, fruitcake, the law ran out in 1998. That means that the AR-15 was legal to purchase in 2000. You really need to stop making shit up.

Of the two guns you show, one is a cheap copy of a Colt LE6920 M4 Carbine while the other is a cheap copy of a Colt AR15A4. You really should have bought the real deals in 2000 and you would not have spent that much more money for them from Colt. I guess stupid people buy stupid things and we can't cure stupid.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Hey Fruitcake, we already went over this. The Judge that wrote the dissertation on this made up a phrase, the Heller Test.

This is a lie, as explained in the post you refuse to honestly and intelligently respond to.

You are fully aware of the fact you cannot cite anything from any USSC ruling that supports any position you have on guns, and that you have not done so.
As for proving you wrong:

Read the law. All of it

I have. My statement stands,
You have nothing, stolen valor, and you know it - else, you'd cite text.

Since you are proven to be too lazy to prove yourself right...

I -have- proven myself right, stolen valor - you simply aren't honest enough to admit it.
When you can cite text that supports your position, let us know. I won't wait up.

I gave you the cites to the legal that back me up. Now, you keep lying your ass off and you provide no backup or cites to back your BS up. Guess that makes you a full blown liar. And since you have nothing but contempt for the US Military, that also makes you a traitor. So from now on, you shall be known as Traitor

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Are you trying to speak for me once again? Are you trying to get inside my head? Maybe you should spend some time in my head. Especially late at night when I am trying to get to sleep. You won't like it. But until you do, you have no idea what I am thinking. And lying about what I am thinking like you do is just plain dishonest.

no thank you,,,

and I was talking about what youre doing not thinking ,,,because I cant read minds, but I can see what is right in front of me and your actions here are anti 2nd amendment,,,

I am for a 2nd amendment. But I know it's long on the tooth and needs to be updated. And it's needed it for many decades if not at least a century. The real question should be, how can we update it to today and still keep it meaningful.

LONG ON THE TOOTH???,,its two sentences,,,
like I said at least youre honest about being anti 2nd,,,

And because it's only two sentences, that makes it long on the tooth.

Said no honest, intelligent person, ever.

And so the Traitor says. You do know that in the times of War, they shoot people like you or at least lock them up,don't you.