M14 Shooter
The Light of Truth
The right of a person to keep and bear arms is not in any way depentent on that person's relationship with the militia.You left out the first part..A well regulated Militia, being necessary
Last edited:
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
The right of a person to keep and bear arms is not in any way depentent on that person's relationship with the militia.You left out the first part..A well regulated Militia, being necessary
George Washington would, witout question, want every one of this potential militiamen, and every one of his frontiersmen, to have an AR15 over their transom and 10 loaded 30-rd magazines in their cartridge box.So Heller told us.. This is what the Founders really meant even though they didn't phrase it that way...got it. Imagine the Founders being raised from the dead and having lived in today's America for six months. Wonder what they would say if asked..would you guys like another stab at wording the 2nd??
^^^My “interpretation, little twit, is what every justice until Scalia knew was true.
Why don't you explain it to the class?You -do- understand the difference here, right?
How does that explain why it's ok to have laws against robbery, even though they aren't 100% effective in stopping robbery, but we can't have reasonable gun control laws unless they are 100% effective in stopping gun crime?The right of a person to keep and bear arms is not in any way depentent on that person's relationship woith the militia.
I'll take a look at your question about a political party releasing prisoners as soon as I finish looking up why Trump approved releasing 500 taliban prisoners. Many of whom are active in Afghanistan right now.
Just to be clear on your question, though, when did any political party receive authority to release prisoners? Other than presidents, and governors who can release specific prisoners, I thought the judges made those decisions. Many of those judges were appointed by right wingers.
Why don't you explain it to the class?
How does that explain why it's ok to have laws against robbery, even though they aren't 100% effective in stopping robbery, but we can't have reasonable gun control laws unless they are 100% effective in stopping gun crime?
The Constitution does indeed give power to create those agencies:A lot of things were not created or dependent on the Constitution..FBI, CIA, NSA, DEA, ATF..and the SCOTUS has given the government leeway in regulating armaments which is why you don't see people walking around with sub-machine guns or RPGs etc.
Let's outlaw religions we don't like, too.And laws against robbery don’t stop all robberies. We still have laws.
you’re welcome
Because robbery violates citizens' civil liberties and the government is constitutionally bound to protect those libertiesWhy don't you explain it to the class?
How does that explain why it's ok to have laws against robbery, even though they aren't 100% effective in stopping robbery, but we can't have reasonable gun control laws unless they are 100% effective in stopping gun crime?
Really? And no republican appointed judges are doing that? You got a credible link showing that, or did you just pull that one out of your ass too?Moron.....the democrat party judges and prosecutors are releasing known, violent, repeat gun offenders on bail, and on short sentences all over the country....they are even granting parole to the guy who murdered Robert Kennedy....you idiot.
An individual selling a gun to someone not legally allowed to own a gun, without any obligation to even find out does.Because robbery violates citizens' civil liberties and the government is constitutionally bound to protect those liberties
Gun ownership doesn't harm anyone, nor threaten anyone's rights.
That causes harm to no one.An individual selling a gun to someone not legally allowed to own a gun, without any obligation to even find out does.
Selling a gun to a crook who is not legally allowed to possess a gun harms no one? You know that's just crazy, right?That causes harm to no one.
Who's harmed by that?Selling a gun to a crook who is not legally allowed to possess a gun harms no one? You know that's just crazy, right?
Who is harmed by arming someone who can't legally own a gun? That question is too stupid to answer, idiot.Who's harmed by that?
If it's so obvious, you should be able to show me up by answering it. Right?Who is harmed by arming someone who can't legally own a gun? That question is too stupid to answer, idiot.
I suppose I could, but if you don't already understand that arming someone who can't legally possess a gun is a threat to the rights of the person to be injured with that gun, you are too stupid to understand my explanation.If it's so obvious, you should be able to show me up by answering it. Right?
No it isn't. A person convicted of crime does not a murderer make. There are lots of non-violent felonies on the books.I suppose I could, but if you don't already understand that arming someone who can't legally possess a gun is a threat to the rights of the person to be injured with that gun, you are too stupid to understand my explanation.
wow. Now you're saying I want to ban and confiscate guns. You understand that just because you spout that insane bullshit, doesn't make it true, right? Here's a deal for you. You keep making up shit, and claiming that is what I want, and I'll start naming things I believe you want. Deal?
2aguy wants everyone to just forget all the doccumented reports of him being arrested for masturbating in the checkout line at Walmart.
Selling a gun to a crook who is not legally allowed to possess a gun harms no one? You know that's just crazy, right?