Guns Are a 2nd Amendment Right, and Nobody Shall Infringe on Them

[AFrench2]

Civil Rights are those we are born with. Your mom doesn't pop out a Beretta tied to your umbilical cord, sorry.

 

[westwall]

And furthermore I agree with the GOP viewpoint that the right shall not be infringed. Men have carried guns since 1776 and men will always carry guns in America. Nothing like a---

...oh. Right. He's one of "them".

Funny, you support every leftwing Agenda item there is.
You won’t fight for the 2A right, don’t pretend otherwise.

I am a firm proponent of pistols and shotguns needing to be legal. I believe in common sense gun ownership for responsible Americans.

What you believe has no bearing on the 2nd Amendment, Shortpants.

We shall see. Ready yourselves...

...Kamala 2024.

Oh, I think this country will be Fundamentally changed long before that hoe gets in.

 

[postman]

Civil Rights are those we are born with. Your mom doesn't pop out a Beretta tied to your umbilical cord, sorry.

Speaking of that. Isn't walking around naked, an inalienable right?
After all, that's how we came into the world. Clothes are just an artificial construct.

 

[westwall]

Civil Rights are those we are born with. Your mom doesn't pop out a Beretta tied to your umbilical cord, sorry.

Correct, but the RIGHT to have and use one was provided when we were born.

 

[postman]

Correct, but the RIGHT to have and use one was provided when we were born.

If that were true, wouldn't that right be provided independent of WHERE we were born?

Or is it a right granted by the sovereign to those he rules?

 

[postman]

Other inalienable rights, are just that. No matter where a person was born, we believe they have the right to free speech, and free exercise of religion.

But we don't believe the Taliban in Afghanistan has the right to bear arms.

 

[kaz]

And furthermore I agree with the GOP viewpoint that the right shall not be infringed. Men have carried guns since 1776 and men will always carry guns in America. Nothing like a---

...oh. Right. He's one of "them".

Um ... what?

Conservatives love guns

Until black man has gun in car

I think I laid it out quite easily, not sure what you're having trouble understanding.

Ah, so you're a racist. Got it.

What did the man being black have to do with it, Grand Wizard? Blacks scare you?

 

[Lastamender]

There are a lot of Conservative Blacks.

No there aren't.

We are not counting how many there are in your basement or backyard.

 

[kaz]

Guns aren't a civil right...so

No, they aren't. You're correct. Guns are not a civil right, they are a Constitutional right

 

[kaz]

There are a lot of Conservative Blacks.

No there aren't.

We are not counting how many there are in your basement or backyard.

Yes, Frenchie belongs to the party of racism, slavery, Jim Crow, the KKK and segregation. Blacks who try to leave his party will learn that they are still slaves to it. Yes, Frenchie is a Democrat.

Explains all his racism in this thread. Blacks are his property, so he firmly believes

 

[marvin martian]

And furthermore I agree with the GOP viewpoint that the right shall not be infringed. Men have carried guns since 1776 and men will always carry guns in America. Nothing like a---

...oh. Right. He's one of "them".

Funny, you support every leftwing Agenda item there is.
You won’t fight for the 2A right, don’t pretend otherwise.

I am a firm proponent of pistols and shotguns needing to be legal. I believe in common sense gun ownership for responsible Americans.

No, you don't.

 

[marvin martian]

Guns aren't a civil right...so

Of course they are, it's right there in the Bill of Rights. You should read it sometime.

 

[themirrorthief]

And furthermore I agree with the GOP viewpoint that the right shall not be infringed. Men have carried guns since 1776 and men will always carry guns in America. Nothing like a---

...oh. Right. He's one of "them".

Funny, you support every leftwing Agenda item there is.
You won’t fight for the 2A right, don’t pretend otherwise.

I am a firm proponent of pistols and shotguns needing to be legal. I believe in common sense gun ownership for responsible Americans.

What you believe has no bearing on the 2nd Amendment, Shortpants.

We shall see. Ready yourselves...

...Kamala 2024.

what about Joe, isnt he running again????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

 

[marvin martian]

Civil Rights are those we are born with. Your mom doesn't pop out a Beretta tied to your umbilical cord, sorry.

Correct, self defense is indeed a right we are born with. By any means necessary.

 

[westwall]

Correct, but the RIGHT to have and use one was provided when we were born.

If that were true, wouldn't that right be provided independent of WHERE we were born?

Or is it a right granted by the sovereign to those he rules?

It does. That's why governments are so desperate to take those Rights away. Where ever you see a anti gun government, you see mass murders not far behind.

 

[AFrench2]

Civil Rights are those we are born with. Your mom doesn't pop out a Beretta tied to your umbilical cord, sorry.

Speaking of that. Isn't walking around naked, an inalienable right?
After all, that's how we came into the world. Clothes are just an artificial construct.

no.

inalienable rights are those that cannot be taken away by government
civil rights are those that cannot be taken away by nature

:O

 

[freyasman]

Civil Rights are those we are born with. Your mom doesn't pop out a Beretta tied to your umbilical cord, sorry.

Speaking of that. Isn't walking around naked, an inalienable right?
After all, that's how we came into the world. Clothes are just an artificial construct.

no.

inalienable rights are those that cannot be taken away by government
civil rights are those that cannot be taken away by nature

:O

Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?, by L. Neil Smith

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership.

lneilsmith.org

From the link;
"Why Did it Have to be ... Guns?
by L. Neil Smith
[email protected]

Over the past 30 years, I've been paid to write almost two million words, every one of which, sooner or later, came back to the issue of guns and gun-ownership. Naturally, I've thought about the issue a lot, and it has always determined the way I vote.

People accuse me of being a single-issue writer, a single- issue thinker, and a single- issue voter, but it isn't true. What I've chosen, in a world where there's never enough time and energy, is to focus on the one political issue which most clearly and unmistakably demonstrates what any politician -- or political philosophy -- is made of, right down to the creamy liquid center.

Make no mistake: all politicians -- even those ostensibly on the side of guns and gun ownership -- hate the issue and anyone, like me, who insists on bringing it up. They hate it because it's an X-ray machine. It's a Vulcan mind-meld. It's the ultimate test to which any politician -- or political philosophy -- can be put.

If a politician isn't perfectly comfortable with the idea of his average constituent, any man, woman, or responsible child, walking into a hardware store and paying cash -- for any rifle, shotgun, handgun, machinegun, anything -- without producing ID or signing one scrap of paper, he isn't your friend no matter what he tells you.

If he isn't genuinely enthusiastic about his average constituent stuffing that weapon into a purse or pocket or tucking it under a coat and walking home without asking anybody's permission, he's a four-flusher, no matter what he claims.

What his attitude -- toward your ownership and use of weapons -- conveys is his real attitude about you. And if he doesn't trust you, then why in the name of John Moses Browning should you trust him?

If he doesn't want you to have the means of defending your life, do you want him in a position to control it?

If he makes excuses about obeying a law he's sworn to uphold and defend -- the highest law of the land, the Bill of Rights -- do you want to entrust him with anything?

If he ignores you, sneers at you, complains about you, or defames you, if he calls you names only he thinks are evil -- like "Constitutionalist" -- when you insist that he account for himself, hasn't he betrayed his oath, isn't he unfit to hold office, and doesn't he really belong in jail?

Sure, these are all leading questions. They're the questions that led me to the issue of guns and gun ownership as the clearest and most unmistakable demonstration of what any given politician -- or political philosophy -- is really made of.

He may lecture you about the dangerous weirdos out there who shouldn't have a gun -- but what does that have to do with you? Why in the name of John Moses Browning should you be made to suffer for the misdeeds of others? Didn't you lay aside the infantile notion of group punishment when you left public school -- or the military? Isn't it an essentially European notion, anyway -- Prussian, maybe -- and certainly not what America was supposed to be all about?

And if there are dangerous weirdos out there, does it make sense to deprive you of the means of protecting yourself from them? Forget about those other people, those dangerous weirdos, this is about you, and it has been, all along.

Try it yourself: if a politician won't trust you, why should you trust him? If he's a man -- and you're not -- what does his lack of trust tell you about his real attitude toward women? If "he" happens to be a woman, what makes her so perverse that she's eager to render her fellow women helpless on the mean and seedy streets her policies helped create? Should you believe her when she says she wants to help you by imposing some infantile group health care program on you at the point of the kind of gun she doesn't want you to have?

On the other hand -- or the other party -- should you believe anything politicians say who claim they stand for freedom, but drag their feet and make excuses about repealing limits on your right to own and carry weapons? What does this tell you about their real motives for ignoring voters and ramming through one infantile group trade agreement after another with other countries?

Makes voting simpler, doesn't it? You don't have to study every issue -- health care, international trade -- all you have to do is use this X-ray machine, this Vulcan mind-meld, to get beyond their empty words and find out how politicians really feel. About you. And that, of course, is why they hate it.

And that's why I'm accused of being a single-issue writer, thinker, and voter.

But it isn't true, is it?"