Some liberals STILL think govt can have some say in who can own a gun

[g5000]

And it doesn't say "unless they aren't very nice people" or "unless they beat their wife ten years ago and did time for it" or any other such restriction.

Actually, the Constitution does say you can remove someone's rights if they are bad people. It's called "due process".

Read the Constitution sometime, and see for yourself.

 

[Manchester]

You don't know what the fuck you're talking about and commie foreigners should just butt out of discussions about the American Constitution. You don't even know what a Constitution is.

A fan of political satire might point you US foreign policy over the last century and find a rich vein of irony in your opinion.

 

[Rustic]

Sounds kind a like making someone buy insurance because they might need it...
Foolish little mind

Common sense. We make people do that.

I know, it's just simple extortion by the federal government

The Feds, the States, the Counties, the Banks, you name it. Don't leave home, or even stay at home, without it.

Never used to need it... Of course, in a politically correct spineless society of socialism got to gain control somehow. L OL

Auto insurance is common sense. Sorry, Charlie.

It is, in this Sue happy society of spineless coward's

 

[Auld Phart]

"The people" means every individual, so you're just plain wrong. It's not the slightest big ambiguous.

Please try to keep up.

the people is only part of the statement and not the message.
keep up? I've lapped you many many times before you could even get started

the people is only part of the statement and not the message.
keep up?

You've got it backwards.

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms IS the statement.

Because not ALL people qualified to join the militia.

false! the message is that there was a need to have a militia .

Then why didn't it give the right to keep and bear arms to the militia, instead of the people?

a militia is kinda of useless with out people , don't ya think?

Now that's hilarious.

Women couldn't belong to a militia.

Boys under 16 couldn't belong to a militia

Men over 45, in some areas 57, couldn't belong to a militia.

Should they have been denied the right to own arms?

the Second gave the right to the PEOPLE, not just the militia

 

[g5000]

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a grand jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the militia, when in actual service in time of war or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.


The Constitution doesn't say you can't take away someone's rights. It says you can if there is due process of law. Which is why preventing felons from acquiring guns is Constitutional.

 

[Rustic]

Having said that, I could care less who owns a gun. I also don't care if sovereign nations have nukes. I don't live in fear, and I know that the likelihood of dying by gun violence or terrorism is less than the likelihood of dying from a bee sting.

Gun violence versus bee, in the US? Stick with the bee, you'd have much better odds.

Guns can't load themselves dumbass

No, but they can fire themselves, and do. And bees are still far safer.

That seems to be a personal problem, not my concern...
Lol

 

[daws101]

You don't get school shootings in the UK and Australia now that guns have been banned in those countries. They aren't tyrannies. It may be effective but at what cost? How many dead children is it worth for the outside chance of a tyranny being averted?

That isn't the question under discussion.

I think when you started throwing insults instead of actual points it became so. You want kids to die because of your stubborn adherance to ancient outdated text. And you call me a douche?

There's nothing "outdated" about it. It's the law.

Thanks for admitting you want to wipe your ass on the Constitution. That makes you a douche.

Accusing people of wanting kids to die also makes you a douche.

kids die either way.
the false accusation you toss around every chance you get is proof of who's the real douche and it aint Manchester ...

What "false accusations?"

false accusations 1 -4
"Thanks for admitting you want to wipe your ass on the Constitution. That makes you a douche.

Accusing people of wanting kids to die also makes you a douche."-bripat9643
"Leftwing douches like you claim "ambiguity" whenever they want to ignore some part of the Constitution."-bripat9643
"You don't know what the fuck you're talking about and commie foreigners should just butt out of discussions about the American Constitution. You don't even know what a Constitution is."-bripat9643

 

[Rustic]

the people is only part of the statement and not the message.
keep up? I've lapped you many many times before you could even get started

the people is only part of the statement and not the message.
keep up?

You've got it backwards.

The Right of the People to Keep and Bear Arms IS the statement.

Because not ALL people qualified to join the militia.

false! the message is that there was a need to have a militia .

Then why didn't it give the right to keep and bear arms to the militia, instead of the people?

a militia is kinda of useless with out people , don't ya think?

Now that's hilarious.

Women couldn't belong to a militia.

Boys under 16 couldn't belong to a militia

Men over 45, in some areas 57, couldn't belong to a militia.

Should they have been denied the right to own arms?

the Second gave the right to the PEOPLE, not just the militia

Commonsense is a bitch to the progressive

 

[bripat9643]

With several separate clauses.

that's pauses .
no where does it state that individuals have the right to bear personal arms , then again it does not prohibit them either and there's the rub.

I'm afraid so. It says "the right of the people." In all other amendments in the Bill of Rights, that means every individual.

your point?
I just said in that post the 2nd amendment never explicitly mentions that individuals have the right bear (own) personal arms but neither does it explicitly state they cannot .....do you understand what the word ambiguous means ?

"The people" means every individual, so you're just plain wrong. It's not the slightest big ambiguous.

Please try to keep up.

the people is only part of the statement and not the message.
keep up? I've lapped you many many times before you could even get started

"The people" is the part that determines who it applies to. It does not say "the right of the militia" shall not be infringed.

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Having said that, I could care less who owns a gun. I also don't care if sovereign nations have nukes. I don't live in fear, and I know that the likelihood of dying by gun violence or terrorism is less than the likelihood of dying from a bee sting.

Gun violence versus bee, in the US? Stick with the bee, you'd have much better odds.

Guns can't load themselves dumbass

No, but they can fire themselves, and do. And bees are still far safer.

That seems to be a personal problem, not my concern...
Lol

Neither are 30,000 gun deaths a year here...

 

[Contumacious]

Then just say I like my gun and it limits my freedom to take it away. I've done nothing wrong with it and preventative law is no law at all. The argument that we should all be able to hold the government to account with our firearms is a laughable anachranism.

What is that babble supposed to mean?

Guns in private hands are indeed a very effective constraint on government. You don't ever see people lined up for mass slaughter in countries where gun ownership is allowed. You don't see oppressive tyrannies.

You don't get school shootings in the UK and Australia now that guns have been banned in those countries. They aren't tyrannies. It may be effective but at what cost? How many dead children is it worth for the outside chance of a tyranny being averted?

You may want to live life scared, but I'll take my chances with the Second Amendment. Now go hide

seems to me your dependence on the second amendment is smoking gun proof ( pun intended ) that you're scared shitless.

All sorts of crazy things "seem" to you. I know that statistically if I have a gun the house and it injures someone then it's roughly 80% also someone who lives in that house. Which "seems" to me to be a great reason not to have one. But of your irrational fear means you'd take that risk then go for it.

Irrational fear?

The Mount Carmel Holocaust 1993

 

[daws101]

Then just say I like my gun and it limits my freedom to take it away. I've done nothing wrong with it and preventative law is no law at all. The argument that we should all be able to hold the government to account with our firearms is a laughable anachranism.

What is that babble supposed to mean?

Guns in private hands are indeed a very effective constraint on government. You don't ever see people lined up for mass slaughter in countries where gun ownership is allowed. You don't see oppressive tyrannies.

You don't get school shootings in the UK and Australia now that guns have been banned in those countries. They aren't tyrannies. It may be effective but at what cost? How many dead children is it worth for the outside chance of a tyranny being averted?

You may want to live life scared, but I'll take my chances with the Second Amendment. Now go hide

seems to me your dependence on the second amendment is smoking gun proof ( pun intended ) that you're scared shitless.

All sorts of crazy things "seem" to you. I know that statistically if I have a gun the house and it injures someone then it's roughly 80% also someone who lives in that house. Which "seems" to me to be a great reason not to have one. But of your irrational fear means you'd take that risk then go for it.

ah, I'm on your side, did you mean rustic?

 

[bripat9643]

That isn't the question under discussion.

I think when you started throwing insults instead of actual points it became so. You want kids to die because of your stubborn adherance to ancient outdated text. And you call me a douche?

There's nothing "outdated" about it. It's the law.

Thanks for admitting you want to wipe your ass on the Constitution. That makes you a douche.

Accusing people of wanting kids to die also makes you a douche.

kids die either way.
the false accusation you toss around every chance you get is proof of who's the real douche and it aint Manchester ...

What "false accusations?"

false accusations 1 -4
"Thanks for admitting you want to wipe your ass on the Constitution. That makes you a douche.

Accusing people of wanting kids to die also makes you a douche."-bripat9643
"Leftwing douches like you claim "ambiguity" whenever they want to ignore some part of the Constitution."-bripat9643
"You don't know what the fuck you're talking about and commie foreigners should just butt out of discussions about the American Constitution. You don't even know what a Constitution is."-bripat9643

So what's false about them?

 

[BluesLegend]

It's not just guns, either. The leftists want power over everybody and everything. It's the marxist way.

^^^ NAILS IT you cannot give liberals an inch because they will take a mile. A bigger group of nazi like control freaks has never existed like these liberals.

 

[Rustic]

Having said that, I could care less who owns a gun. I also don't care if sovereign nations have nukes. I don't live in fear, and I know that the likelihood of dying by gun violence or terrorism is less than the likelihood of dying from a bee sting.

Gun violence versus bee, in the US? Stick with the bee, you'd have much better odds.

Guns can't load themselves dumbass

No, but they can fire themselves, and do. And bees are still far safer.

That seems to be a personal problem, not my concern...
Lol

Neither are 30,000 gun deaths a year here...

Most of those are from gangbangers on each other... There are bigger fish to fry. Gun control makes no sense it only hurts the law-abiding people

 

[g5000]

Guns can't load themselves dumbass

No, but they can fire themselves, and do.

Nope. They cannot, and do not.

 

[Rustic]

Do America some good, buy more guns and ammo

 

[bripat9643]

Because the liberals who come up with this horseshit need to be refuted. Which I have done.

BTW, I "like" guns for the same reason I "like" the hammer, saw, and screwdrivers in my tool box. They enable me to do things that need doing. Even though most of the time I leave them in the box and don't think about them for days or weeks on end. Until another situation comes up where I need to use them. And then I'm glad I have them.

Then just say I like my gun and it limits my freedom to take it away. I've done nothing wrong with it and preventative law is no law at all. The argument that we should all be able to hold the government to account with our firearms is a laughable anachranism.

What is that babble supposed to mean?

Guns in private hands are indeed a very effective constraint on government. You don't ever see people lined up for mass slaughter in countries where gun ownership is allowed. You don't see oppressive tyrannies.

You don't get school shootings in the UK and Australia now that guns have been banned in those countries. They aren't tyrannies. It may be effective but at what cost? How many dead children is it worth for the outside chance of a tyranny being averted?

That isn't the question under discussion.

yes it is . the whole theme of this thread is gun control , you're just to chicken shit or ignorant to admit it.

The subthread started by Manchester was whether "the argument that we should all be able to hold the government to account with our firearms is a laughable anachranism." He brought the issue up, and then he tried to change the subject.

 

[daws101]

What is that babble supposed to mean?

Guns in private hands are indeed a very effective constraint on government. You don't ever see people lined up for mass slaughter in countries where gun ownership is allowed. You don't see oppressive tyrannies.

You don't get school shootings in the UK and Australia now that guns have been banned in those countries. They aren't tyrannies. It may be effective but at what cost? How many dead children is it worth for the outside chance of a tyranny being averted?

You may want to live life scared, but I'll take my chances with the Second Amendment. Now go hide

seems to me your dependence on the second amendment is smoking gun proof ( pun intended ) that you're scared shitless.

All sorts of crazy things "seem" to you. I know that statistically if I have a gun the house and it injures someone then it's roughly 80% also someone who lives in that house. Which "seems" to me to be a great reason not to have one. But of your irrational fear means you'd take that risk then go for it.

Irrational fear?

The Mount Carmel Holocaust 1993

bitch please! the branch Davidians brought that on themselves
it does showcase the point that armed citizens do stupid things

 

[PaintMyHouse]

Gun violence versus bee, in the US? Stick with the bee, you'd have much better odds.

Guns can't load themselves dumbass

No, but they can fire themselves, and do. And bees are still far safer.

That seems to be a personal problem, not my concern...
Lol

Neither are 30,000 gun deaths a year here...

Most of those are from gangbangers on each other... There are bigger fish to fry. Gun control makes no sense it only hurts the law-abiding people

Law-abiding people describes more than 2/3rds of who die each year with a gun in their hands. That fish is plenty big enough.