So explain....

[RetiredGySgt]

There are literally hundreds of thousands of Muslim terrorists but the left insists that the majority not be penalized for their behavior...... There are at most a dozen or 2 mass shooters a year yet the left INSISTS that MILLIONS of legal firearms owners be punished because of it.

 

[Valerie]

no one insists that proven terrorists not be penalized for their behavior...

"the right" conflates innocent people, who happen to be muslim, with terrorists.

your constitution protects those innocent muslims... (not just the liberals you blame for noticing)

 

[DarkFury]

no one insists that proven terrorists not be penalized for their behavior...

the right conflates innocent people, who happen to be muslim, with terrorists.

your constitution protects those innocent muslims... (not just the liberals you blame for noticing)

It also protects innocent gun owners!

 

[Valerie]

weapons of war in the hands of violent extremists, of any stripe, is terrifying.

who is "punished" by laws that keep weapons of war out of the hands of terrorists??

if you think the answer is you... please explain how??

doesn't "the security of a free state" also provide the right to not be terrorized?

 

[Valerie]

aren't innocents in a free state "punished" by permitting public ownership of weapons of war?


why not petition our government to amend the 2nd amendment??

why not update according to what is currently necessary to the security of a free state?

why not amend the wording, complete with self-defense castle doctrine plus provisions for hunting and sport, preserving the right of the people to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, with permit levels for various scales of trained and certified ownership, including law enforcement.

who precisely would be "punished" by this ^

 

[Valerie]

those were the days...

when a well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state.

but what is necessary to the security of a free state nowadays...........??

 

[Dale Smith]

weapons of war in the hands of violent extremists, of any stripe, is terrifying.

who is "punished" by laws that keep weapons of war out of the hands of terrorists??

if you think the answer is you... please explain how??

doesn't "the security of a free state" also provide the right to not be terrorized?

We have been terrorized by our own "government" going back to the 60's and they have terrorized other countries as well while toppling duly elected leaders and putting in their puppets. Cointelpro ring a bell? Operation Gladio, Operation Gladio B, Operation Northwoods, etc, etc. These false flag shooting events that are perfectly "legal" within the scope of this statutory law system now that the Smith-Mundt Act no longer applies making it legal for this corporate entity that we call "government" to legally spew propaganda.

Then we have chickenshit commies like you that wants the public disarmed which has always been a major plank in the communist agenda. It's not gonna happen in your lifetime.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

doesn't "the security of a free state" also provide the right to not be terrorized?

You don't get to define "feeling terrorized.". I feel terrorized by the wacko left every day.

 

[Vastator]

aren't innocents in a free state "punished" by permitting public ownership of weapons of war?


why not petition our government to amend the 2nd amendment??

why not update according to what is currently necessary to the security of a free state?

why not amend the wording, complete with self-defense castle doctrine plus provisions for hunting and sport, preserving the right of the people to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, with permit levels for various scales of trained and certified ownership, including law enforcement.

who precisely would be "punished" by this ^

Because it was worded perfectly the first time. “Shall not be infringed...”

 

[Carl in Michigan]

why not petition our government to amend the 2nd amendment??

Why? It recognizes your right to defend yourself. EVERY living being has that right. Why do you deny us that?

 

[Valerie]

why not petition our government to amend the 2nd amendment??

Why? It recognizes your right to defend yourself. EVERY living being has that right. Why do you deny us that?

i noticed you cherry picked one sentence of many in my post. derrrp



people get infracted for doing that FYI

 

[Valerie]

aren't innocents in a free state "punished" by permitting public ownership of weapons of war?


why not petition our government to amend the 2nd amendment??

why not update according to what is currently necessary to the security of a free state?

why not amend the wording, complete with self-defense castle doctrine plus provisions for hunting and sport, preserving the right of the people to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, with permit levels for various scales of trained and certified ownership, including law enforcement.

who precisely would be "punished" by this ^

Because it was worded perfectly the first time. “Shall not be infringed...”

the prefatory clause speaks to what is necessary to the security of a free state.

no REAL reason to be so dense...........

 

[Carl in Michigan]

why not petition our government to amend the 2nd amendment??

Why? It recognizes your right to defend yourself. EVERY living being has that right. Why do you deny us that?

i noticed you cherry picked one sentence of many in my post. derrrp



people get infracted for doing that FYI

So yourey THREATENING me without answering the question. Im feeling terrorized.

 

[Carl in Michigan]

the prefatory clause speaks to what is necessary to the security of a free state.

The right of self defense is inherit in all living creatures. You oppose the right of self defense.

 

[Valerie]

weapons of war in the hands of violent extremists, of any stripe, is terrifying.

who is "punished" by laws that keep weapons of war out of the hands of terrorists??

if you think the answer is you... please explain how??

doesn't "the security of a free state" also provide the right to not be terrorized?

We have been terrorized by our own "government" going back to the 60's and they have terrorized other countries as well while toppling duly elected leaders and putting in their puppets. Cointelpro ring a bell? Operation Gladio, Operation Gladio B, Operation Northwoods, etc, etc. These false flag shooting events that are perfectly "legal" within the scope of this statutory law system now that the Smith-Mundt Act no longer applies making it legal for this corporate entity that we call "government" to legally spew propaganda.

Then we have chickenshit commies like you that wants the public disarmed which has always been a major plank in the communist agenda. It's not gonna happen in your lifetime.

we live by rule of law, not by rule of paranoid delusions...

 

[Valerie]

the prefatory clause speaks to what is necessary to the security of a free state.

The right of self defense is inherit in all living creatures. You oppose the right of self defense.

au contraire.. see post number 5. ^


"why not amend the wording, complete with self-defense castle doctrine plus provisions for hunting and sport, preserving the right of the people to keep and bear arms for all lawful purposes, with permit levels for various scales of trained and certified ownership, including law enforcement."

 

[TNHarley]

those were the days...

when a well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state.

but what is necessary to the security of a free state nowadays...........??

Lol please try and explain what you think that phrase means

 

[Valerie]

those were the days...

when a well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state.

but what is necessary to the security of a free state nowadays...........??

Lol please try and explain what you think that phrase means

i've seen your posts regarding word derivation and the regulation of a clock.

which does not change my question as to what is necessary to the security of a free state NOWADAYS.

 

[Dale Smith]

weapons of war in the hands of violent extremists, of any stripe, is terrifying.

who is "punished" by laws that keep weapons of war out of the hands of terrorists??

if you think the answer is you... please explain how??

doesn't "the security of a free state" also provide the right to not be terrorized?

We have been terrorized by our own "government" going back to the 60's and they have terrorized other countries as well while toppling duly elected leaders and putting in their puppets. Cointelpro ring a bell? Operation Gladio, Operation Gladio B, Operation Northwoods, etc, etc. These false flag shooting events that are perfectly "legal" within the scope of this statutory law system now that the Smith-Mundt Act no longer applies making it legal for this corporate entity that we call "government" to legally spew propaganda.

Then we have chickenshit commies like you that wants the public disarmed which has always been a major plank in the communist agenda. It's not gonna happen in your lifetime.

we live by rule of law, not by rule of paranoid delusions...

We don't have laws under the UCC, we live under acts, statutes, codes, ordinances and what they refer to as "public policy". This goes all the way back to the Chapter 11 Bankruptcy of 1933 and HJR-192 when we lost allodial rights to property and our labor was pledged as surety against the debt. Things are not even close to what we think they are.

 

[TNHarley]

those were the days...

when a well regulated militia was necessary to the security of a free state.

but what is necessary to the security of a free state nowadays...........??

Lol please try and explain what you think that phrase means

i've seen your posts regarding word derivation and the regulation of a clock.

which does not change my question as to what is necessary to the security of a free state NOWADAYS.

Lol please try and explain what you think that phrase means