Not when you are the lawI'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.
The law is ALWAYS the law. Today it might be OK but tomorrow guns may be illegal. That's the law.
I'll keep my guns you can pound sand
I repeat ...........
... and you've just proved/admitted it.
troll
Keeping my rights makes me a criminal? I can live with that on the other hand you're not going to live without your rights
No he's a useful tool that will be disgraded soon.
If the constitution or amendment is repealed (or amended) it won't be "your right". Is that really too difficult for you to grasp? Jesus! You haven't even got the most rudimental understanding of the law. How old are you? 12?
My rights are mine to keep. The government didn't give them to me. They are mine not to be fucked with
Troll: BLOCKED
I'll bet that you walk on your hands ....... backwards.
Are you on crack?
Your word salad's trying to defend your positions have fallen flat, so if you actually were thinking, then it would show, but it appears you have nothing between your ears to think with. My points were precise and to the point, and it put you quickly into word salad spin mode... ROTFLMBOOK, 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?
I'd say a Russian Agent.
You have supplied no explanation or answer to my question (only slander) plus you intentionally misquoted me or more precis contaminated my words with your own addition, which I am sure is against the forum rules.
How do you like them apples?I am an idiot.
All of it
Ok, then precisely list in separate lines your word's by each point you think you made, and then show my response to your supposed points made, and let's review Mr. Word salad maker.
Regradless of the second amendment I have the right to self-defense the government did not give me that right. The government is mandated by the US Constitution to protect that right.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?
fucking sheeple like you will surrender their rights
