Thank God for our RIGHT to keep and bear arms

[P@triot]

Can you own a nuke, yes or no? It's an arm, right?

According to the U.S. Constitution? Absolutely. Why is it ok for the people who answer to me to have one but not me? What world do you live in where the subordinates have more power and resources than leadership?!?

I answered your question honestly and concisely. Are you capable of doing the same for once?

 

[2aguy]

We don't live in Japan or Iraq junior. Try again. How sad is it that you have to point to nations literally all the way across the world to make your case for policy you want here in the U.S.

By the way - if guns are too scary for you and Japan is so wonderful - go live there.

Lastly, why are you even here? You already admitted that the 1st Amendment rights to not extend to the internet (that were your own words). Our founders could have never anticipated computers, much less an interconnected linking of devices across the world. That was not their intent when they created the 1st Amendment. So shut the f' up, turn your computer off, and sit there quietly.

Japan and Iraq completely destroy what you believe. Suck it, Puddles.

And the founders didn't anticipate the guns you love so suck that as well.

Yes they did. They already had weapons that fired multiple rounds per second look up the Puckle Gun it was the first weapon to be refereed to as a machine gun. Patented in 1718. Regardless The Constitution says Right to bear arms. It doesn't say right to bear single shot, flint lock, smooth bore musket. .

Can you own a nuke, yes or no? It's an arm, right?

The worst weapon for personal defense. You can't target shoot with a nuke, sure as hell can't hunt with one, and the radiation a damaged one puts out will make you have a bad day. Liberals always pull that nuke shit out of their asses in a last ditch effort to win an argument.

It's an arm, not around 200 years. Should you be able to own one, yes or no?

Did you change your name from Brain357?.....you post the same stupidity he does....

 

[Jack4jill]

Laws will just be the start. And no guns can be done but you'll hate it.

Well, I know you liberals hate logic, but can we try it here anyway?

• Marijuana is universally outlawed (federal law trumps state law chief so don't even attempt to point to Oregon or Colorado). Yet it is rampant.

• Heroin is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Cocaine is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Crack is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Meth is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Prostitution is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Many forms of gambling are universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

So tell us again how outlawing guns is going to make them disappear?

When gun control happens, they won't just be outlawed. They will be collected and destroyed.

 

[Jack4jill]

Japan and Iraq completely destroy what you believe. Suck it, Puddles.

And the founders didn't anticipate the guns you love so suck that as well.

Yes they did. They already had weapons that fired multiple rounds per second look up the Puckle Gun it was the first weapon to be refereed to as a machine gun. Patented in 1718. Regardless The Constitution says Right to bear arms. It doesn't say right to bear single shot, flint lock, smooth bore musket. .

Can you own a nuke, yes or no? It's an arm, right?

The worst weapon for personal defense. You can't target shoot with a nuke, sure as hell can't hunt with one, and the radiation a damaged one puts out will make you have a bad day. Liberals always pull that nuke shit out of their asses in a last ditch effort to win an argument.

It's an arm, not around 200 years. Should you be able to own one, yes or no?

Did you change your name from Brain357?.....you post the same stupidity he does....

Never heard of him.

 

[Votto]

The perpetrator was armed with a knife. This woman would have been dead if not for her 2nd Amendment right. Of course, the left have been waging a disgusting war on women for decades so they wouldn't have cared. In fact, I suspect that's why they want to disarm everyone. More female victims for them. Demand men have access to women's locker rooms, showers, and rest rooms and then disarm them.

Woman leaves would-be attacker bloody and wounded

Interestingly, it appears Hilary will be the one to strip them of that right.

 

[Votto]

The 2nd Amendment isn't going anywhere you crazy paranoids.

Two words:

SCOTUS stooges

 

[Jack4jill]

Can you own a nuke, yes or no? It's an arm, right?

According to the U.S. Constitution? Absolutely. Why is it ok for the people who answer to me to have one but not me? What world do you live in where the subordinates have more power and resources than leadership?!?

I answered your question honestly and concisely. Are you capable of doing the same for once?

Nukes are for nations, not persons. And even nations should not have them.

The Founders never would have approved of personal nukes, never.

BTW, your answer is that of a moron. I'm done responding to you.

 

[P@triot]

Can you own a nuke, yes or no? It's an arm, right?

So we've already established Constitutionally that I have an absolute right to own nuclear weapons. What is your great concern about that now? What aren't you afraid of other people owning?

• A nuclear weapon is going to cost millions of dollars just for a single device. That's going to ellinate 99.999% of the population right there (who the frick is going to spend 50% to 100% of their income to buy a weapon?).

• Of that 00.001% that are left, how many have any desire to own a nuclear weapon? I'm betting Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Larry Ellison have no desire.

• So now you're down to basically one person in America. They will have to adhere to all regulations regarding handling and storing nuclear materials. On top of that, they will need to find several people willing to take responsibility for nuclear launch codes (even the U.S. President himself can't launch a nuclear weapon).

So now that I've proven your "concerns" are remarkably nonsensical - is your mind finally at ease?

 

[P@triot]

Can you own a nuke, yes or no? It's an arm, right?

According to the U.S. Constitution? Absolutely. Why is it ok for the people who answer to me to have one but not me? What world do you live in where the subordinates have more power and resources than leadership?!?

I answered your question honestly and concisely. Are you capable of doing the same for once?

Nukes are for nations, not persons. And even nations should not have them.

The Founders never would have approved of personal nukes, never.

BTW, your answer is that of a moron. I'm done responding to you.

Boom! I rest my case. Thank you.

By the way, exactly where do you believe you derive the power to decide that "nukes are for nations, not for individuals" and that "even nations shouldn't have them".

Your arrogance is remarkable (though sadly typical of liberals). You've appointed yourself the ultimate arbiter of all things. You decide for all of humanity that no nation should own a nuke in your own mind. Unbelievable.

 

[OKTexas]

Another perfect example of how the Constitution saves lives and liberal policy would cause deaths. This hatchet-wielding maniac would be fully compliant with law under liberals gun control utopia. But thankfully, the Constitution granted this person the right to protect himself and those around him.

Customer Steps Up to Stop a Hatchet-Wielding Masked Man From Wreaking Havoc at a 7-Eleven

That's how you rehabilitate a criminal. Zero recidivism.

 

[Votto]

Can you own a nuke, yes or no? It's an arm, right?

According to the U.S. Constitution? Absolutely. Why is it ok for the people who answer to me to have one but not me? What world do you live in where the subordinates have more power and resources than leadership?!?

I answered your question honestly and concisely. Are you capable of doing the same for once?

Nukes are for nations, not persons. And even nations should not have them.

The Founders never would have approved of personal nukes, never.

BTW, your answer is that of a moron. I'm done responding to you.

So you trust Iran with one more than anyone here?

 

[Jack4jill]

Can you own a nuke, yes or no? It's an arm, right?

According to the U.S. Constitution? Absolutely. Why is it ok for the people who answer to me to have one but not me? What world do you live in where the subordinates have more power and resources than leadership?!?

I answered your question honestly and concisely. Are you capable of doing the same for once?

Nukes are for nations, not persons. And even nations should not have them.

The Founders never would have approved of personal nukes, never.

BTW, your answer is that of a moron. I'm done responding to you.

So you trust Iran with one more than anyone here?

Far more. Iran is sane. Pissed, but sane.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Laws will just be the start. And no guns can be done but you'll hate it.

Well, I know you liberals hate logic, but can we try it here anyway?

• Marijuana is universally outlawed (federal law trumps state law chief so don't even attempt to point to Oregon or Colorado). Yet it is rampant.

• Heroin is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Cocaine is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Crack is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Meth is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Prostitution is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Many forms of gambling are universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

So tell us again how outlawing guns is going to make them disappear?

When gun control happens, they won't just be outlawed. They will be collected and destroyed.

Can you go through the dynamics for us please?

The closest you can come to outlawing firearms is for the new SC court (If Hillary wins) to say that firearm ownership is no longer protected by the Constitution.

What that means is cities and states across the country (more likely liberal) could create laws against ownership or carrying of a firearm. That does not mean that conservative states have to do the same. In fact, conservative states can make guns even more available and easier to get a carry permit than ever.

On a national level, any President wanting to outlaw guns (or confiscate them) would have to get full approval by a majority of Congress and Senate. That's never going to happen..
And even if Democrats were able to pull that off, it would be the end of their leadership for decades in the White House and both Congress and Senate.

But keep dreaming.......we all have dreams you know.

 

[Votto]

Can you own a nuke, yes or no? It's an arm, right?

According to the U.S. Constitution? Absolutely. Why is it ok for the people who answer to me to have one but not me? What world do you live in where the subordinates have more power and resources than leadership?!?

I answered your question honestly and concisely. Are you capable of doing the same for once?

Nukes are for nations, not persons. And even nations should not have them.

The Founders never would have approved of personal nukes, never.

BTW, your answer is that of a moron. I'm done responding to you.

So you trust Iran with one more than anyone here?

Far more. Iran is sane. Pissed, but sane.

So the same people that say that the Holocaust never happened and shout death to Israel and the US everyday you trust more than posters here?

Duly noted.

 

[Jack4jill]

Can you own a nuke, yes or no? It's an arm, right?

According to the U.S. Constitution? Absolutely. Why is it ok for the people who answer to me to have one but not me? What world do you live in where the subordinates have more power and resources than leadership?!?

I answered your question honestly and concisely. Are you capable of doing the same for once?

Nukes are for nations, not persons. And even nations should not have them.

The Founders never would have approved of personal nukes, never.

BTW, your answer is that of a moron. I'm done responding to you.

So you trust Iran with one more than anyone here?

Far more. Iran is sane. Pissed, but sane.

So the same people that say that the Holocaust never happened and shout death to Israel and the US everyday you trust more than posters here?

Duly noted.

Words, words, words.

 

[Jack4jill]

Laws will just be the start. And no guns can be done but you'll hate it.

Well, I know you liberals hate logic, but can we try it here anyway?

• Marijuana is universally outlawed (federal law trumps state law chief so don't even attempt to point to Oregon or Colorado). Yet it is rampant.

• Heroin is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Cocaine is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Crack is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Meth is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Prostitution is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Many forms of gambling are universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

So tell us again how outlawing guns is going to make them disappear?

When gun control happens, they won't just be outlawed. They will be collected and destroyed.

Can you go through the dynamics for us please?

The closest you can come to outlawing firearms is for the new SC court (If Hillary wins) to say that firearm ownership is no longer protected by the Constitution.

What that means is cities and states across the country (more likely liberal) could create laws against ownership or carrying of a firearm. That does not mean that conservative states have to do the same. In fact, conservative states can make guns even more available and easier to get a carry permit than ever.

On a national level, any President wanting to outlaw guns (or confiscate them) would have to get full approval by a majority of Congress and Senate. That's never going to happen..
And even if Democrats were able to pull that off, it would be the end of their leadership for decades in the White House and both Congress and Senate.

But keep dreaming.......we all have dreams you know.

Flying was once a dream, walking on the moon, cars that drive themselves. Time is on my side.

 

[Votto]

According to the U.S. Constitution? Absolutely. Why is it ok for the people who answer to me to have one but not me? What world do you live in where the subordinates have more power and resources than leadership?!?

I answered your question honestly and concisely. Are you capable of doing the same for once?

Nukes are for nations, not persons. And even nations should not have them.

The Founders never would have approved of personal nukes, never.

BTW, your answer is that of a moron. I'm done responding to you.

So you trust Iran with one more than anyone here?

Far more. Iran is sane. Pissed, but sane.

So the same people that say that the Holocaust never happened and shout death to Israel and the US everyday you trust more than posters here?

Duly noted.

Words, words, words.

Words, words, words....................mean things.

Unless you are Hillary Clinton. If you are Hillary Clinton, "What does it matter?"

 

[Votto]

Laws will just be the start. And no guns can be done but you'll hate it.

Well, I know you liberals hate logic, but can we try it here anyway?

• Marijuana is universally outlawed (federal law trumps state law chief so don't even attempt to point to Oregon or Colorado). Yet it is rampant.

• Heroin is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Cocaine is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Crack is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Meth is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Prostitution is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Many forms of gambling are universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

So tell us again how outlawing guns is going to make them disappear?

When gun control happens, they won't just be outlawed. They will be collected and destroyed.

Can you go through the dynamics for us please?

The closest you can come to outlawing firearms is for the new SC court (If Hillary wins) to say that firearm ownership is no longer protected by the Constitution.

What that means is cities and states across the country (more likely liberal) could create laws against ownership or carrying of a firearm. That does not mean that conservative states have to do the same. In fact, conservative states can make guns even more available and easier to get a carry permit than ever.

On a national level, any President wanting to outlaw guns (or confiscate them) would have to get full approval by a majority of Congress and Senate. That's never going to happen..
And even if Democrats were able to pull that off, it would be the end of their leadership for decades in the White House and both Congress and Senate.

But keep dreaming.......we all have dreams you know.

Flying was once a dream, walking on the moon, cars that drive themselves. Time is on my side.

Legalized pot is great, eh?

 

[Jack4jill]

Laws will just be the start. And no guns can be done but you'll hate it.

Well, I know you liberals hate logic, but can we try it here anyway?

• Marijuana is universally outlawed (federal law trumps state law chief so don't even attempt to point to Oregon or Colorado). Yet it is rampant.

• Heroin is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Cocaine is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Crack is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Meth is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Prostitution is universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

• Many forms of gambling are universally outlawed. Yet it is rampant and readily available.

So tell us again how outlawing guns is going to make them disappear?

When gun control happens, they won't just be outlawed. They will be collected and destroyed.

Can you go through the dynamics for us please?

The closest you can come to outlawing firearms is for the new SC court (If Hillary wins) to say that firearm ownership is no longer protected by the Constitution.

What that means is cities and states across the country (more likely liberal) could create laws against ownership or carrying of a firearm. That does not mean that conservative states have to do the same. In fact, conservative states can make guns even more available and easier to get a carry permit than ever.

On a national level, any President wanting to outlaw guns (or confiscate them) would have to get full approval by a majority of Congress and Senate. That's never going to happen..
And even if Democrats were able to pull that off, it would be the end of their leadership for decades in the White House and both Congress and Senate.

But keep dreaming.......we all have dreams you know.

Flying was once a dream, walking on the moon, cars that drive themselves. Time is on my side.

Legalized pot is great, eh?

An idea whose time has come, like gay marriage.

 

[Jack4jill]

Nukes are for nations, not persons. And even nations should not have them.

The Founders never would have approved of personal nukes, never.

BTW, your answer is that of a moron. I'm done responding to you.

So you trust Iran with one more than anyone here?

Far more. Iran is sane. Pissed, but sane.

So the same people that say that the Holocaust never happened and shout death to Israel and the US everyday you trust more than posters here?

Duly noted.

Words, words, words.

Words, words, words....................mean things.

Unless you are Hillary Clinton. If you are Hillary Clinton, "What does it matter?"

Words in politics or anger aren't worth much.