The 2nd Amendment for dumbocrats

[OKTexas]

A well regulated militia is no longer necessary to security of our nation. (Oh and the pop guns they allow you to have will not defeat the weapons our military has)

The proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

When did the founders use the term "State" to mean the federal government. Please provide one example.

 

[P@triot]

The proliferation of rapid fire firearms in the population has endanged and ended the inalienable right to life of many of our citizens.

Uh, more people die by automobile accidents every year than they do by guns in three years. Where is your call to ban automobiles considering they have "endangered and ended the inalienable right to life"?!?

Clearly, you have an agenda based on an uneducated irrationality and not based on what actually protects "the inalienable right to life".

If we were all driving our guns to work every day of the week we have more gun accidents than we do. Wait, people don't drive their guns to work do they? Nor do most people commite murder by car either.

I don't know if you have an agenda or not, and I really don't care, but your automobile equivocation is a silly argument, the kind you'd hear on Fox News or something.

Simple fact: more deaths every year (including children) occur by automobile than anything else.

Simple question: if your real agenda is protecting the "unalienable right to life", than your #1 priority should be banning automobiles since they have been proven to be most dangerous. So why do you focus on guns and completely ignore automobiles?

 

[P@triot]

Associate Justice Rottweiler is giving us a lesson in Constitutional Law. Oh boy!!

He's looking at the 2nd Amendment through keyhole. A very limited reading that disregards all case law, majority opinions, dissenting opinions, etc.

SCOTUS has already ruled on the constitutionality of gun restrictions and gun registrations.

It's all constitutional. Bans on certain military-style weapons has been found to be constitutional.

The Bill of Rights are the Constitution are what SCOTUS says they are. Do you understand the concept of Precedent?

When SCOTUS hands down a decision, then that becomes the 2nd Amendment as applied in law.

• Ted Bundy has already raped and murdered many women.
  
  
• Ed Kemper has already raped and murdered many women.
  
  
• Gary Ridgeway has already raped and murdered many women.
  
  
• Dennis Rader has already raped and murdered many women.
  
  
• Jeffery Dahmer has already raped and murdered many men.
  
  
• John Wayne Gaci has already raped and murdered many men.

So by your "rational" about law and how our legal system works, because there is precedence here (and tons of it) for these rapes and murders, then they magically becomes acceptable and legal!

Just because you dumbocrat assholes have abused power and violated the law does not mean the law magically changes. You don't understand your own government.

There is no document anywhere that authorizes the Supreme Court (or any part of the judicial branch) to "interpret" the U.S. Constitution and then alter it. The power simply does not exist. Period. End of story.

It's the first round and you've just been knocked on your ass HARD. Have your corner throw in the towel now son before this becomes a bloodbath...

 

[JoeB131]

[quo

Again, who gives a **** what you think? You've sat on the sidelines your entire life, being the epitome of of a failure - being released from job after job after job for pitiful performance, all while screaming that truly great men who accomplished the greatest feat of world history were "stupid" and "racist". In short, just another example of your extreme and very perverted envy of those more successful than you (which is most everybody).

Guy, given how much time you spend here, I sort of doubt you have a job. And frankly, I don't consider creating a flawed country that almost collapsed completely 80 years in to be a 'feat'. I call that kind of rank incompetence. Lincoln was the Great Man, not Washington.

Everything you post is downright silly. Everything in this world is a trade off. The downside to freedom is ignorant people like you having the right/freedom to spew your uneducated nonsense.

Everything is a trade-off. This is the first thing you got right.

Dead children is a bad trade off for you penis compensation.

The other even sillier reason you guys give is that you need them to overthrow the government some day. Like most of you would get off your fat asses to do that, but even so, the government will always have more guns, bigger guns and be a lot better at using them.

If they do, it's only because lazy, useless, parasites like you fought to ensure that the government had more guns and bigger guns, so you can continue to suckle at teat of government, groveling for their table scraps in exchange for your rights and freedoms.

Furthermore, as usual, you fail to realize that the majority of our men and women risk their lives for a reason. And it's not for your government table scraps or to ensure government power. It's for freedom - and most (if not all) of those men & women would happily use those "more guns, bigger guns" to over throw an unconstitutional, tyrannical government should it come to that point.

Guy, I was in the military for 11 years. I'd have had no problem shooting wannabe militia assholes who were acting like terrorists. Nor would have anyone I served with.

Fact is, how many times has the military as a group refused to obey orders, even the most stupid and evil ones...

How about- NEVER.

Honestly, the far whacky right tried this shit in the 1990s, and people slapped their asses down so hard they are still dizzy.

 

[JoeB131]

Uh, more people die by automobile accidents every year than they do by guns in three years. Where is your call to ban automobiles considering they have "endangered and ended the inalienable right to life"?!?

Clearly, you have an agenda based on an uneducated irrationality and not based on what actually protects "the inalienable right to life".

If we were all driving our guns to work every day of the week we have more gun accidents than we do. Wait, people don't drive their guns to work do they? Nor do most people commite murder by car either.

I don't know if you have an agenda or not, and I really don't care, but your automobile equivocation is a silly argument, the kind you'd hear on Fox News or something.

Simple fact: more deaths every year (including children) occur by automobile than anything else.

Simple question: if your real agenda is protecting the "unalienable right to life", than your #1 priority should be banning automobiles since they have been proven to be most dangerous. So why do you focus on guns and completely ignore automobiles?

Automobiles are necessary. Guns are not.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Guy, I was in the military for 11 years. I'd have had no problem shooting wannabe militia assholes who were acting like terrorists. .

What about citizens rallying to the call of their respective state under the terms of their Constitutions to support dissolution from the Union?

You ready to shoot them ?

 

[Billo_Really]

Simple fact: more deaths every year (including children) occur by automobile than anything else.

Simple question: if your real agenda is protecting the "unalienable right to life", than your #1 priority should be banning automobiles since they have been proven to be most dangerous. So why do you focus on guns and completely ignore automobiles?

Wer gettin' dem guns!

HA-HA-HA!

HA-HA-HA!

HA-HA-HA!

 

[JoeB131]

Guy, I was in the military for 11 years. I'd have had no problem shooting wannabe militia assholes who were acting like terrorists. .

What about citizens rallying to the call of their respective state under the terms of their Constitutions to support dissolution from the Union?

You ready to shoot them ?

Those people I'd double tap like zombies in the interest of evolution.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Guy, I was in the military for 11 years. I'd have had no problem shooting wannabe militia assholes who were acting like terrorists. .

What about citizens rallying to the call of their respective state under the terms of their Constitutions to support dissolution from the Union?

You ready to shoot them ?

Those people I'd double tap like zombies in the interest of evolution.

Perfect. The hate is strong in this one.

 

[jillian]

Guy, I was in the military for 11 years. I'd have had no problem shooting wannabe militia assholes who were acting like terrorists. .

What about citizens rallying to the call of their respective state under the terms of their Constitutions to support dissolution from the Union?

You ready to shoot them ?

you can't secede.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Guy, I was in the military for 11 years. I'd have had no problem shooting wannabe militia assholes who were acting like terrorists. .

What about citizens rallying to the call of their respective state under the terms of their Constitutions to support dissolution from the Union?

You ready to shoot them ?

you can't secede.

Can't doesn't mean much to the motivated.

There is no contract which can't be broken for a cost.

 

[midcan5]

I guess it's time to re-argue slavery too, lots of other stupid things we could debate from so long ago and so far away in history. Thinking of the sort of the OP is similar to this quotation. "A conservative is a man who will not look at the new moon out of respect for that "ancient institution" the old one."* Any other nonsensical ideas from 250 years ago you'd like to promote? Times they do change.

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state." “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review magazine


*Douglas Jerrold

 

[P@triot]

Guy, given how much time you spend here, I sort of doubt you have a job. And frankly, I don't consider creating a flawed country that almost collapsed completely 80 years in to be a 'feat'. I call that kind of rank incompetence. Lincoln was the Great Man, not Washington.

I know you've been owned and are embarrassed when you go to the "guy" stuff. Once again you show profound ignorance when you claim that people freeing themselves from the world's military super power of the time (England) and then founding their own nation was "no feat" because it wasn't PERFECT (what is asshole) and had to engage in a Civil War.

Only an asshole like you can claim that that was no "feat" because it had "flaws" and the country suffered a Civil War long after those founders were dead You really are a ****'n idiot that keeps hitting new levels of complete insanity. How are you not embarrassed by your senseless drivel?

Dead children is a bad trade off for you penis compensation.

Children don't die because of a "penis compensation", they die because freedom comes with a cost (hence the reason you have such a sick obsession with Communism - which you don't realize has a bigger cost).

Furthermore asshole, more children die in car accidents in a year than they do by guns in 5 years. So if you cared one ******* bit about children, you'd be calling to ban automobiles, not guns. Shows what a disingenuous asshole you are and that you have an irrational fear of firearms. Can't wait to see how you try to dig yourself out of this hole of illogical opinions...

 

[P@triot]

Simple fact: more deaths every year (including children) occur by automobile than anything else.

Simple question: if your real agenda is protecting the "unalienable right to life", than your #1 priority should be banning automobiles since they have been proven to be most dangerous. So why do you focus on guns and completely ignore automobiles?[/SIZE]

Wer gettin' dem guns!

HA-HA-HA![/SIZE]

HA-HA-HA![/SIZE]

HA-HA-HA![/SIZE]

Just so you all know, "guns" is boy's code word for COCK. And you better believe he's getting the cock he wants.

As for the rest of it, I've already proven you're not touching the guns because of that "little piece of paper" that you guys hate, called the Constitution.

 

[OODA_Loop]

I guess it's time to re-argue slavery too, lots of other stupid things we could debate from so long ago and so far away in history.

Like the 1st Amendment'

Who would of thought the transmission of violent sexual images of women would be readily accessible in homes and in the palm of hand w/ a swipe of the finger ?

 

[Black_Label]

Simple fact: more deaths every year (including children) occur by automobile than anything else.

Simple question: if your real agenda is protecting the "unalienable right to life", than your #1 priority should be banning automobiles since they have been proven to be most dangerous. So why do you focus on guns and completely ignore automobiles?[/SIZE]

Wer gettin' dem guns!

HA-HA-HA![/SIZE]

HA-HA-HA![/SIZE]

HA-HA-HA![/SIZE]

Just so you all know, "guns" is boy's code word for COCK. And you better believe he's getting the cock he wants.

As for the rest of it, I've already proven you're not touching the guns because of that "little piece of paper" that you guys hate, called the Constitution.

That piece of paper that the GOP and W wiped their rears with, with the patriot act?

Big letters is fun, let me try: The GOP hates the constitution

 

[OODA_Loop]

That piece of paper that the GOP and W wiped their rears with, with the patriot act?

"But Bush" = internet tap out.

 

[JoeB131]

What about citizens rallying to the call of their respective state under the terms of their Constitutions to support dissolution from the Union?

You ready to shoot them ?

you can't secede.

Can't doesn't mean much to the motivated.

There is no contract which can't be broken for a cost.

And the cost would be too high for most people.

Look what the Civil War did. the South is still conisdered the most backwards, primitive part of the country to this very day... because a lot of poor white people decided to go to war when rich white people didn't want to give up their slaves.

The mistake was not taking Davis, Lee, and every other Confederate leader out and executing them... painfully.

 

[P@triot]

I guess it's time to re-argue slavery too, lots of other stupid things we could debate from so long ago and so far away in history. Thinking of the sort of the OP is similar to this quotation. "A conservative is a man who will not look at the new moon out of respect for that "ancient institution" the old one."* Any other nonsensical ideas from 250 years ago you'd like to promote? Times they do change.

"In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud--I repeat the word 'fraud'--on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all. "In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'--'the militia'--would be maintained for the defense of the state." “The Most Mysterious Right,” National Review magazine


*Douglas Jerrold

First of all, one of you idiot asshole dumbocrats found a supposed quote from Burger and are passing it around like it's gospel. I'm sorry, are you guys under the impression any of us give a **** what Mr. Burger thinks?!?!

Second, your entire first paragraph has nothing to do with anything. How do you equate the abolishment of slavery with guns which are still a Constitutional right? More than that, your comments on conservatives are utterly asinine and nonsensical. "Times change"... ok? So since we've seen more and more serial killers, and "times change", I guess we need to legalize the brutal rapes and murders that serial killers commit, right?

The argument, you fool, is about the law. The law that you asshole ignorant dumbocrats ignore (until it suits you). The highest law in the land dictates that arms are a Constitutional right. And there ain't a ****'n thing you can do about it (which is why you try to pervert the Constitution and change the conversation during debates).

Now that you've been thoroughly owned and humiliated, would you like to try again?

 

[OKTexas]

If we were all driving our guns to work every day of the week we have more gun accidents than we do. Wait, people don't drive their guns to work do they? Nor do most people commite murder by car either.

I don't know if you have an agenda or not, and I really don't care, but your automobile equivocation is a silly argument, the kind you'd hear on Fox News or something.

Simple fact: more deaths every year (including children) occur by automobile than anything else.

Simple question: if your real agenda is protecting the "unalienable right to life", than your #1 priority should be banning automobiles since they have been proven to be most dangerous. So why do you focus on guns and completely ignore automobiles?

Automobiles are necessary. Guns are not.

Really, want to tell the 2.5 million people who use them for personal protecton every year that.