- Thread starter
- #521
Rights Trump's it allCriminals versus laws your turn.
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.
Rights Trump's it allCriminals versus laws your turn.
Fuck your well beingI hope you realize how ridiculous that statement is.
So, actually, you don't care about the well-being of the American population as long as it is governed by "the right".
So, actually, you don't care about the well-being of the American population as long as it is governed by "the right".
It's not my well-being - it's yours - and it is high time that you admit to yourself that you are a Fascist sympathiser. You'd have loved Adolf Hiter and Benito Mussolini.Fuck your well being
It's not my well-being - it's yours - and it is high time that you admit to yourself that you are a Fascist sympathiser. You'd have loved Adolf Hiter and Benito Mussolini.
You'd have loved Adolf Hiter and Benito Mussolini.
F U C K your well being get in reality and buy a gun to defend yourself.It's not my well-being - it's yours - and it is high time that you admit to yourself that you are a Fascist sympathiser. You'd have loved Adolf Hiter and Benito Mussolini.
Pretty much on target.not nearly as much as you would have...
After all, the three of you share the same views on gun ownership
Why would I need to defend myself? The only would-be threat anywhere in the vicinity of my LZ is you, and a paper clip is all I need to neutralize you.F U C K your well being get in reality and buy a gun to defend yourself.
Think about where Putin might be if the citizen's in Russia were armed to the teeth. He might be in his own gulag by now........ Do you think that he'd be easily manipulating that citizenry to not stand up to him and his war mongering if they were armed like American's are, and do you think that he would be successful at locking all those anti-war protestor's up so easily ? This is why part of America's check's and balances included a well armed regulated militia in the constitution, and it also said that the citizen's right to bear arms was not to be infringed upon. End of story.You are lost in your own "escape route". If you remove the gun "in time" you'll have saved the lives of all of those people I referred to in my earlier post. Yes, even if removing the gun ends up killing the owner because of his resistance to giving it up voluntarily. That's one life taken ..... untold numbers of lives saved.
The subject of "killing a lot of people" in the process of removing guns isn't mine. I am merely responding to it by logic. But then it wasn't you who introduced the notion of "killing a lot of people" either. Maybe he's the one who should be defending himself, not you.
OK, I’m thinking …..Think about where Putin might be if the citizen's in Russia were armed to the teeth.
Why is that?He might be in his own gulag by now........
Oh, my goodness! That’s a bad analogy and you’ve just shot yourself in the foot and disproved your own logic. “War mongering”, you say? Now, what country can you think of that is the worst “war-mongerer” as we speak? ……..... Time is up, the answer is the USA. B-b-b-b-b-but Americans are “armed to the teeth” so how is it that the president isn’t “in his own gulag by now”? There is something extremely wrong with your logic. Don’t you agree?Do you think that he'd be easily manipulating that citizenry to not stand up to him and his war mongering if they were armed like American's are ...
This makes no sense at all.This is why part of America's check's and balances included a well armed regulated militia in the constitution ...
So, you believe that if the Constitution (or that particular clause) were to be amended that you would still have a “citizen's right to bear arms” and that it would be “uninfringe upon”? Excuse me for laughing but that kind of belief is awfully childish. Do you not know what an “amendment” is? What about "repeal”, do you know what that means?... it also said that the citizen's right to bear arms was not to be infringed upon.
Good luck nutbag.Why would I need to defend myself? The only would-be threat anywhere in the vicinity of my LZ is you, and a paper clip is all I need to neutralize you.
You don't know as much as you think you do. I guess you've never heard of "experience".Good luck nutbag.
Sure it's called law enforcement and military experience.You don't know as much as you think you do. I guess you've never heard of "experience".
I've got the military experience and you've got a hankering to disobey the law so you're screwed either way. It's criminals like you who ought to be denied access to guns in the first place and it is you OF COURSE who is screaming to keep your pop gun. It's as typcial as anyone can expect.Sure it's called law enforcement and military experience.
OK, I’m thinking …..
Why is that?
Oh, my goodness! That’s a bad analogy and you’ve just shot yourself in the foot and disproved your own logic. “War mongering”, you say? Now, what country can you think of that is the worst “war-mongerer” as we speak? ……..... Time is up, the answer is the USA. B-b-b-b-b-but Americans are “armed to the teeth” so how is it that the president isn’t “in his own gulag by now”? There is something extremely wrong with your logic. Don’t you agree?
This makes no sense at all.
So, you believe that if the Constitution (or that particular clause) were to be amended that you would still have a “citizen's right to bear arms” and that it would be “uninfringe upon”? Excuse me for laughing but that kind of belief is awfully childish. Do you not know what an “amendment” is? What about "repeal”, do you know what that means?
Yes,What about "repeal”, do you know what that means?
3/4 of the states. 38.Yes,
it means 2/3s of each house of Congress, (66 members the Senate, 290 members of the House) and 2/3s of the states, (35). have agreed to make a change to a current amendment.
Did you say what you think you said?3/4 of the states. 38.
The 13 states most likely to vote against a repeal of the 2nd hold about 7% of the US population.
What part did you choose to not understand?Did you say what you think you said?
What part did you choose to not understand?
I have misunderstood NOTHING, neither intentionally nor unintentionally. I am asking if what you wrote is what you really wanted to say. Nothing more, nothing less. I don't know how you found something confrontational in my question.What part did you choose to not understand?
It -is- painfully obvious.the more he responds, the more I'm convinced he's a troll.