“Hell yes we are going to take your AR-15”

[Rigby5]

Not really satire.

Beto: 'Hell Yes I'm Going To Violate My Oath To Defend The Constitution'

Horseshit - we've had Assault Weapons Ban in 1994-2004, it was never ruled to be unconstitutional.

The 1994 ban on assault weapons was not ruled unconstitutional because the SCOTUS was corrupt, but also because there was no confiscation of previously purchased ARs, or ban on ARs after their flash suppressors were removed.
You just don't know the details.
No one stopped making or selling ARs, ever.

 

[Rigby5]

What is it about left tards who do not know the meaning of "shall not be infringed"?

It doesn’t mean weapon manufacturers can make wmds or that you can possess them.

How come you don’t cry about machine guns being classified and regulated differently than most other firearms? So just throw ar15s on that list.

You are a moron..

The founding fathers wanted the populace to be equally armed as any government entity.

...so a private stash of tanks, rockets and nuclear weapons is cool with you?

Founding fathers were talking about musket (not even considered firearms) armed militias, not assualt weapons for private citizens.

Absolutely, private ownership of weapons is a necessity, and far safer than government ownership.

The Founding Fathers were taking about cannon, blunderbusses, punt guns, hand cranked machine guns, etc.
They intended it to cover the best weapons available.
The most certainly intended assault weapons for private individuals.
Most of the cannon used in the Revolutionary war were privately owned.

 

[Rigby5]

What is it about left tards who do not know the meaning of "shall not be infringed"?

It doesn’t mean weapon manufacturers can make wmds or that you can possess them.

How come you don’t cry about machine guns being classified and regulated differently than most other firearms? So just throw ar15s on that list.

You are a moron..

The founding fathers wanted the populace to be equally armed as any government entity.

...so a private stash of tanks, rockets and nuclear weapons is cool with you?

Founding fathers were talking about musket (not even considered firearms) armed militias, not assualt weapons for private citizens.

Really it comes down to this. We need to classify AR15's as title 2 weapons. Right wingers don't cry about the guns that are currently classified as title 2 weapons and they won't say a ******* thing when AR15's and guns like them are also put on this list.

Title II weapons, or NFA firearms, are restricted firearms and other devices regulated by the National Firearms Act (NFA). These items are only sold by specially licensed FFL dealers with a Class 3 Special Occupational Tax permit, which is why they are also often referred to as Class 3 weapons.

People looking to purchase these weapons must go through a licensed FFL Dealer who either has the item or can accept the transfer for the NFA device. After arranging with the dealer, it is then necessary to get approval for the transfer from the ATF. This is done by submitting an ATF Form 4. The cost to process the transfer is $200 and requires the applicant to submit identifying information. Approval for the item will come back in the form of a "tax stamp." Once the ATF approves the transfer, the buyer can then complete the transaction with their NFA Dealer.

So you can legally own a machine gun. But you have to go through all this to get one. That's why very few people today own them. And that's exactly what we want. No one needs to own an AR15 that holds 20 bullets. Too many nuts out there can get their hands on these wmd's.

Oh, and Beto O'Rorke is an idiot. If you have a AR15 feel free to keep it and you don't even have to register it as a title 2 weapon. BUT, if you want to go buy a new one, well, ou won't find them on the shelf at Dunhams.

I don't particularly find additional paperwork to be all that offensive, but it still is illogical.
An AR is not at all a weapon of mass destruction, and one can easily kill more people much faster with a shotgun or 2 pistols, if at short range. The purpose of an AR is cover fire at longer range, and is not particularly good at killing people at any range.

 

[Rigby5]

And thus, you know you cannot meaningfully address my question without the admission that Bobby will have to kill people who refuse to give up their guns to confiscate them - as previously claimed, and denied by you.

Moron, Bobby would be the President of the United ******* States, who would advocate for and sign specific laws and executives orders. Thats what he is talking about.

He WOULD NOT be someone that enforces and adjudicates specific cases. Our justice system does that and it is bound by laws including those requiring reasonable cause to conduct search and seizure of private property as well as bringing illegal possetion charges in the court of law.

To not understand all that is to be grossly ignorant of how our system works.

Even more important is that attempting to confiscate ARs that were legally purchased, absolutely violates the Constitution.

{...
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9
...
Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
...}

Ex post facto is where you try to later make illegal that which was legal when done. So you can not legally retroactively make ARs illegal.
That is strictly forbidden by article 1, section 9, of the constitution.
If the federal government would ever try to do that, then it must be destroyed, as a clear and present danger to the democratic republic as a whole, and everyone individually.

Dummy, the illegal act would be current ownership of a newly banned weapon, not original purchase or ownership before the ban, which may have been perfectly legal at the time.

There is no ex post facto issue here AS EXPLAINED 10 TIMES BY NOW IN THIS THREAD

Wrong.
It is illegal to try to change current ownership to become illegal.
What is legal or not can NEVER be based on an arbitrary whim.
It has to only be based on what is needed for the defense of individual rights.
If the original purchase of an AR was not illegal because it did not violate the rights of anyone, then it can never be made illegal later.
You are totally wrong on this, and never have the courts ever upheld confiscation of what was purchased legally.
When Prohibition made alcohol illegal, the government still had to allow all existing stocks to legally be sold.
What was done legally in the past can now now ever be made illegal.
If the sale of ARs were to become illegal, all those existing ARs in possession would have to be grandfathered in.
That is what had to be done with all the machine guns owned previously before new machine guns were made illegal.
You can NEVER confiscate that which was legally purchased.
You do not understand what the ex post facto laws mean.
Confiscation of what was legal is never legal.

If you are going to call somerthing wrong you may as well contradict what it states.

There is no ex post facto issue here and nothing you said refutes that.


But as to your (so far baseless) claim that it is not constitutional to make possetion illegal, that is easily contradicted by many examples to the contrary including local laws during prohibition that banned possetion (not just manufacture and sale) of alchohol.

Totally wrong.
Prohibition of Alcohol did not and could not prevent the sale of existing stocks of alcohol.
Confiscation of existing anything that was legal, is strictly and completely illegal.

 

[Rustic]

 

[BULLDOG]

No I didn't avoid anything. You just don't understand the basics of how enforcement of illegal possetion works.

And thus, you know you cannot meaningfully address my question without the admission that Bobby will have to kill people who refuse to give up their guns to confiscate them - as previously claimed, and denied by you.

Moron, Bobby would be the President of the United ******* States, who would advocate for and sign specific laws and executives orders. Thats what he is talking about.

He WOULD NOT be someone that enforces and adjudicates specific cases. Our justice system does that and it is bound by laws including those requiring reasonable cause to conduct search and seizure of private property as well as bringing illegal possetion charges in the court of law.

To not understand all that is to be grossly ignorant of how our system works.

Even more important is that attempting to confiscate ARs that were legally purchased, absolutely violates the Constitution.

{...
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9
...
Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
...}

Ex post facto is where you try to later make illegal that which was legal when done. So you can not legally retroactively make ARs illegal.
That is strictly forbidden by article 1, section 9, of the constitution.
If the federal government would ever try to do that, then it must be destroyed, as a clear and present danger to the democratic republic as a whole, and everyone individually.

Dummy, the illegal act would be current ownership of a newly banned weapon, not original purchase or ownership before the ban, which may have been perfectly legal at the time.

There is no ex post facto issue here AS EXPLAINED 10 TIMES BY NOW IN THIS THREAD

Wrong.
It is illegal to try to change current ownership to become illegal.
What is legal or not can NEVER be based on an arbitrary whim.
It has to only be based on what is needed for the defense of individual rights.
If the original purchase of an AR was not illegal because it did not violate the rights of anyone, then it can never be made illegal later.
You are totally wrong on this, and never have the courts ever upheld confiscation of what was purchased legally.
When Prohibition made alcohol illegal, the government still had to allow all existing stocks to legally be sold.
What was done legally in the past can now now ever be made illegal.
If the sale of ARs were to become illegal, all those existing ARs in possession would have to be grandfathered in.
That is what had to be done with all the machine guns owned previously before new machine guns were made illegal.
You can NEVER confiscate that which was legally purchased.
You do not understand what the ex post facto laws mean.
Confiscation of what was legal is never legal.

The only automatic weapons legal for the public to own were manufactured before a certain date. They were legal for almost anyone to purchase them before that time. That isn't the case now.

 

[BULLDOG]

Got it. You're another one of those anti-government gun nuts.

Define "gun nut," Nazi?

You. I would point to you as a shining example of a gun nut.

Hardly matters who or what is whatever.
The reality is that centralized federal weapons laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution that explicitly say the federal government is prohibited from enacting any weapons legislation at all.

Does that include the federal legislation concerning automatic weapons?

YES!
Not a single automatic weapons was or could be confiscated when new automatic weapons were made illegal to manufacture and sell.
That is why tens of thousand of average citizens in the US still own and buy automatic weapons.
That is because all automatic weapons built before 1986 have to be allowed as grandfathered in, because they were built before automatic weapons were made illegal.
You can legally buy one of those pre-existing machine guns right now.
They are just very expensive since there are not that many of them.
Nothing legally purchased can later be made illegal and confiscated.
Never.

Let the ATF find someone with an automatic weapon, but not the required approvals, and permits, and then tell me about no guns being confiscated.

 

[BULLDOG]

So what did you expect? You have been accusing Democrats for years of coming for your guns when there was no effort whatsoever to do that. Eventually, you get to a point where you realize that if you are going to be accused of it anyway, you might as well consider whether it would be worthwhile. You worked long and hard to convince Beto that it would be worthwhile. Congratulations. You should be proud.

Big ******* cop out.

But as usual, the left blames someone else. Big mean gun pushers made you do it.

How long have you gun nuts been crying that someone was coming for your guns, with no rational reason to believe anyone was? Now you're getting all excited because someone finally said "OK, let's think about that" You silly little baby.

Its not like those with guns invented the idea of government confiscation of guns.
All dictatorship all over the world and through out history have always done it.
It is the defining element, that allows anyone to tell when a government has become so corrupt that it has to be destroyed.
It has always been the line in the sand.
And it is impossible to read the Constitution without realizing the founders had intended for not a single federal weapons law at all.
So we clearly are already over that line, and the federal government has already become criminal.
We all just keep hoping it was a mistake that will be corrected.
But confiscation can be no mistake.
It is a call to arms.

Typical gun nut. Primed for an armed conflict. Something has to be, and will be done about that

{,,, Benjamin Franklin that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ...}

All democratic republics come from armed conflict, and have to be maintained through armed conflict.
It is foolish to believe that freedoms could come any other way.

Another gun nut with wet dreams about running through the streets playing John Wayne or dirty Harry.

 

[BULLDOG]

How long have you gun nuts been crying that someone was coming for your guns, with no rational reason to believe anyone was? Now you're getting all excited because someone finally said "OK, let's think about that" You silly little baby.

You already admitted that "gun nut" is just an enemy of the party, it has no actual meaning.

How can a Nazi **** like you speak of "rational?"

Please point to the post where you think I made that claim.

“Hell yes we are going to take your AR-15”

That was YOU, right Comrade?

The post below is what you linked to. Where do you think I said gun nuts are just an enemy of the party, or that it has no actual meaning dumb ass?
ACTUALLY, YOU GUN NUTS HAVE BECOME SO MUCH MORE. You are a danger to the safety of our citizens.

View attachment 279783

That is obviously foolish.
If having an AR makes one a danger, then we would not be giving them to the police or military.

And if you try to claim that the police and military are so honest and safe that they are no danger, you clearly would be lying. The police have a record of 10 times the number of illegal murders of average people, and everything the US military has done since WWII was illegal murder of innocents, such as Shock and Awe.

The police and military at least receive some training, and have defined rules as to when and how they can use guns. They don't necessarily follow those rules, but the at least have them.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Beto...will kill?
That is not how our enforcement and justice systm works numbnuts.

Tell us:
How will Bobby confiscate weapons from those who refuse to give them up?

Seriously? How does "Bobby confiscate" illegal weapons today?

Characteristically, you avoided the question. I'll ask again:
How will Bobby confiscate weapons from those who refuse to give them up?

No I didn't avoid anything. You just don't understand the basics of how enforcement of illegal possetion works.

So. what you mean to say is that he will confiscate them?

So, what you really want is a total ban and confiscation?

.

 

[Rustic]

Big ******* cop out.

But as usual, the left blames someone else. Big mean gun pushers made you do it.

How long have you gun nuts been crying that someone was coming for your guns, with no rational reason to believe anyone was? Now you're getting all excited because someone finally said "OK, let's think about that" You silly little baby.

Its not like those with guns invented the idea of government confiscation of guns.
All dictatorship all over the world and through out history have always done it.
It is the defining element, that allows anyone to tell when a government has become so corrupt that it has to be destroyed.
It has always been the line in the sand.
And it is impossible to read the Constitution without realizing the founders had intended for not a single federal weapons law at all.
So we clearly are already over that line, and the federal government has already become criminal.
We all just keep hoping it was a mistake that will be corrected.
But confiscation can be no mistake.
It is a call to arms.

Typical gun nut. Primed for an armed conflict. Something has to be, and will be done about that

{,,, Benjamin Franklin that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ...}

All democratic republics come from armed conflict, and have to be maintained through armed conflict.
It is foolish to believe that freedoms could come any other way.

Another gun nut with wet dreams about running through the streets playing John Wayne or dirty Harry.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

it's just funny we've gone from WE ARE NOT COMING FOR YOUR GUNS to HELL YEA WE'RE GONNA TAKE 'EM!!!

the ironic part is the anti-gun crowd started out thinking the AR15 was fully automatic. the media fed that ignorance 24x7. the anti-gunners eat it up cause they don't want to understand, they just want what they want. but unfortunately the more the anti-gunners learn, the more they just want all guns gone cause they can't define "assault rifle" outside their emotional force field.

when you debate the issue and ask how it's different, their frustration sets in and they just want all semi-automatic guns gone now.

but they're not coming for gun and just want "common sense" when that in fact is the last thing they have cause they refuse to learn, just broaden their definition and demands.

So what did you expect? You have been accusing Democrats for years of coming for your guns when there was no effort whatsoever to do that. Eventually, you get to a point where you realize that if you are going to be accused of it anyway, you might as well consider whether it would be worthwhile. You worked long and hard to convince Beto that it would be worthwhile. Congratulations. You should be proud.

Big ******* cop out.

But as usual, the left blames someone else. Big mean gun pushers made you do it.

How long have you gun nuts been crying that someone was coming for your guns, with no rational reason to believe anyone was? Now you're getting all excited because someone finally said "OK, let's think about that" You silly little baby.

Its not like those with guns invented the idea of government confiscation of guns.
All dictatorship all over the world and through out history have always done it.
It is the defining element, that allows anyone to tell when a government has become so corrupt that it has to be destroyed.
It has always been the line in the sand.
And it is impossible to read the Constitution without realizing the founders had intended for not a single federal weapons law at all.
So we clearly are already over that line, and the federal government has already become criminal.
We all just keep hoping it was a mistake that will be corrected.
But confiscation can be no mistake.
It is a call to arms.

Yep. Confiscation is an act of war. Any killing of the enemy is war is justified.

Don't start nutin. Won't be nutin.

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Not in the eyes of autocratic government that wants the general population to be unable to resist tyranny.
The fact police and military are given firearms is proof they are necessary.
And anyone who believes the government can be trusted with weapons more than the general public, is a traitor to the democratic republic.

Got it. You're another one of those anti-government gun nuts.

Define "gun nut," Nazi?

You. I would point to you as a shining example of a gun nut.

Hardly matters who or what is whatever.
The reality is that centralized federal weapons laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution that explicitly say the federal government is prohibited from enacting any weapons legislation at all.

Does that include the federal legislation concerning automatic weapons?

Yes. That has always been illegal and should have caused a full revolt, but it was done slowly and in the shadows.

Most constitutionalists are willing to leave well enough alone and not start organizing the troops, but you start this confiscation shit, or pass one more federal gun law, and all bets are off.

.

 

[Flash]

According to the resident dumbass, you certainly will - and Bobby won't have to use force to take them from you.

I will never turn over any of my firearms to the government. I will never participate in any government buyback program.

I am sure that the Democrat filth gets enough power they will take away our rights to keep and bear arms. If that happens I am sure there will be a boating accident where all of my firearms will be lost.

Before giving them to the filthy ass government or allowing the government to take them from me I will give them to the inner city punks in either the ghetto of Tampa or Orlando.

If any of these stupid uneducated Moon Bats think that Americans will allow them to take away our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms without resistance they are sadly mistaken. This ain't Australia, UK or New Zealand.

 

[Rigby5]

And thus, you know you cannot meaningfully address my question without the admission that Bobby will have to kill people who refuse to give up their guns to confiscate them - as previously claimed, and denied by you.

Moron, Bobby would be the President of the United ******* States, who would advocate for and sign specific laws and executives orders. Thats what he is talking about.

He WOULD NOT be someone that enforces and adjudicates specific cases. Our justice system does that and it is bound by laws including those requiring reasonable cause to conduct search and seizure of private property as well as bringing illegal possetion charges in the court of law.

To not understand all that is to be grossly ignorant of how our system works.

Even more important is that attempting to confiscate ARs that were legally purchased, absolutely violates the Constitution.

{...
U.S. Constitution - Article 1 Section 9
...
Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
...}

Ex post facto is where you try to later make illegal that which was legal when done. So you can not legally retroactively make ARs illegal.
That is strictly forbidden by article 1, section 9, of the constitution.
If the federal government would ever try to do that, then it must be destroyed, as a clear and present danger to the democratic republic as a whole, and everyone individually.

Dummy, the illegal act would be current ownership of a newly banned weapon, not original purchase or ownership before the ban, which may have been perfectly legal at the time.

There is no ex post facto issue here AS EXPLAINED 10 TIMES BY NOW IN THIS THREAD

Wrong.
It is illegal to try to change current ownership to become illegal.
What is legal or not can NEVER be based on an arbitrary whim.
It has to only be based on what is needed for the defense of individual rights.
If the original purchase of an AR was not illegal because it did not violate the rights of anyone, then it can never be made illegal later.
You are totally wrong on this, and never have the courts ever upheld confiscation of what was purchased legally.
When Prohibition made alcohol illegal, the government still had to allow all existing stocks to legally be sold.
What was done legally in the past can now now ever be made illegal.
If the sale of ARs were to become illegal, all those existing ARs in possession would have to be grandfathered in.
That is what had to be done with all the machine guns owned previously before new machine guns were made illegal.
You can NEVER confiscate that which was legally purchased.
You do not understand what the ex post facto laws mean.
Confiscation of what was legal is never legal.

The only automatic weapons legal for the public to own were manufactured before a certain date. They were legal for almost anyone to purchase them before that time. That isn't the case now.

Wrong.
Those made before that 1986 can still always be legally purchased by almost anyone.
They are just expensive because there are not many of them.
But it is LEGAL to make your own machine gun, as long you tell the BATF, and pay the tax stamp for it.
You just can not sell one made after 1986.
But ones make before 1986 are still being bought and sold, legally.
They can not be confiscated nor prevented from being owned, bought, or sold.

 

[Rigby5]

Define "gun nut," Nazi?

You. I would point to you as a shining example of a gun nut.

Hardly matters who or what is whatever.
The reality is that centralized federal weapons laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution that explicitly say the federal government is prohibited from enacting any weapons legislation at all.

Does that include the federal legislation concerning automatic weapons?

YES!
Not a single automatic weapons was or could be confiscated when new automatic weapons were made illegal to manufacture and sell.
That is why tens of thousand of average citizens in the US still own and buy automatic weapons.
That is because all automatic weapons built before 1986 have to be allowed as grandfathered in, because they were built before automatic weapons were made illegal.
You can legally buy one of those pre-existing machine guns right now.
They are just very expensive since there are not that many of them.
Nothing legally purchased can later be made illegal and confiscated.
Never.

Let the ATF find someone with an automatic weapon, but not the required approvals, and permits, and then tell me about no guns being confiscated.

Those who legally owned an automatic weapon before 1986 do not have to get any approvals or permits, at all, in any way.
The only way guns or anything can be legally confiscated is if laws are violated by the owner.
And possession of a machine gun legally purchased before 1986 is not a violation of any law.
And no one who legally purchased a machine gun before 1986 can have anything done to them or their machine gun.

 

[Rigby5]

Big ******* cop out.

But as usual, the left blames someone else. Big mean gun pushers made you do it.

How long have you gun nuts been crying that someone was coming for your guns, with no rational reason to believe anyone was? Now you're getting all excited because someone finally said "OK, let's think about that" You silly little baby.

Its not like those with guns invented the idea of government confiscation of guns.
All dictatorship all over the world and through out history have always done it.
It is the defining element, that allows anyone to tell when a government has become so corrupt that it has to be destroyed.
It has always been the line in the sand.
And it is impossible to read the Constitution without realizing the founders had intended for not a single federal weapons law at all.
So we clearly are already over that line, and the federal government has already become criminal.
We all just keep hoping it was a mistake that will be corrected.
But confiscation can be no mistake.
It is a call to arms.

Typical gun nut. Primed for an armed conflict. Something has to be, and will be done about that

{,,, Benjamin Franklin that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ...}

All democratic republics come from armed conflict, and have to be maintained through armed conflict.
It is foolish to believe that freedoms could come any other way.

Another gun nut with wet dreams about running through the streets playing John Wayne or dirty Harry.

Your disrespect for the founders is duly noted.
Apparently you do not share their desire for a democratic republic.
I do.

 

[Rigby5]

You already admitted that "gun nut" is just an enemy of the party, it has no actual meaning.

How can a Nazi **** like you speak of "rational?"

Please point to the post where you think I made that claim.

“Hell yes we are going to take your AR-15”

That was YOU, right Comrade?

The post below is what you linked to. Where do you think I said gun nuts are just an enemy of the party, or that it has no actual meaning dumb ass?
ACTUALLY, YOU GUN NUTS HAVE BECOME SO MUCH MORE. You are a danger to the safety of our citizens.

View attachment 279783

That is obviously foolish.
If having an AR makes one a danger, then we would not be giving them to the police or military.

And if you try to claim that the police and military are so honest and safe that they are no danger, you clearly would be lying. The police have a record of 10 times the number of illegal murders of average people, and everything the US military has done since WWII was illegal murder of innocents, such as Shock and Awe.

The police and military at least receive some training, and have defined rules as to when and how they can use guns. They don't necessarily follow those rules, but the at least have them.

The police mostly come from the military so have almost no rules at all. They basically consider anyone who is not the police to be a threat and therefore a valid target. How many hundreds of times do they have to shoot fleeing suspects in the back before you figure out they are the bad guys. No ordinary citizen would shoot someone in the back who was no threat. Only the police are that disgusting. Training to shoot first is much worse than no training at all.

 

[BULLDOG]

Got it. You're another one of those anti-government gun nuts.

Define "gun nut," Nazi?

You. I would point to you as a shining example of a gun nut.

Hardly matters who or what is whatever.
The reality is that centralized federal weapons laws are strictly forbidden by the Constitution that explicitly say the federal government is prohibited from enacting any weapons legislation at all.

Does that include the federal legislation concerning automatic weapons?

Yes. That has always been illegal and should have caused a full revolt, but it was done slowly and in the shadows.

Most constitutionalists are willing to leave well enough alone and not start organizing the troops, but you start this confiscation shit, or pass one more federal gun law, and all bets are off.

.

 

[BULLDOG]

How long have you gun nuts been crying that someone was coming for your guns, with no rational reason to believe anyone was? Now you're getting all excited because someone finally said "OK, let's think about that" You silly little baby.

Its not like those with guns invented the idea of government confiscation of guns.
All dictatorship all over the world and through out history have always done it.
It is the defining element, that allows anyone to tell when a government has become so corrupt that it has to be destroyed.
It has always been the line in the sand.
And it is impossible to read the Constitution without realizing the founders had intended for not a single federal weapons law at all.
So we clearly are already over that line, and the federal government has already become criminal.
We all just keep hoping it was a mistake that will be corrected.
But confiscation can be no mistake.
It is a call to arms.

Typical gun nut. Primed for an armed conflict. Something has to be, and will be done about that

{,,, Benjamin Franklin that “Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety” ...}

All democratic republics come from armed conflict, and have to be maintained through armed conflict.
It is foolish to believe that freedoms could come any other way.

Another gun nut with wet dreams about running through the streets playing John Wayne or dirty Harry.

Your disrespect for the founders is duly noted.
Apparently you do not share their desire for a democratic republic.
I do.

Your accusations of disrespect for the founders is way off base. I guess making wild unfounded accusations is just another symptom of being a crazy right winger.