Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Freedom of Self-Defense involves protecting one's family and oneself, not murder.Freedom of speech involves the exchange of ideas, not bullets. Don't know the difference? Then wow, I think you need to go back to basic 4th grade physics.
Resorting to insults simply proves I am correct and you have nothing else of intellectual value to offer.Childish and dumb. You think gun control advocates don't agree with putting murderers in jail?
Freedom of Self-Defense involves protecting one's family and oneself, not murder.Freedom of speech involves the exchange of ideas, not bullets. Don't know the difference? Then wow, I think you need to go back to basic 4th grade physics.
Obviously you disagree with this quote: "La plume est plus forte que l'epee."
Furthermore, you obviously do not believe words can harm nor that there is anything such as hate speech.
Resorting to insults simply proves I am correct and you have nothing else of intellectual value to offer.Childish and dumb. You think gun control advocates don't agree with putting murderers in jail?
Sure. That doesn't make it right or legal. But it is what it is.By any objective measure the 2nd amendment is a right. In fact, it is an explicitly granted right. One in which the bearer does not need to earn other than being a peaceable law abiding citizen. So regardless of your opinions of republicans all peaceable law abiding citizens have a 2nd amendment right and nothing any other citizen does can negate their right. Let me know when the supposed armed over throw begins because of Obamacare.
It BECOMES a liability when someone shoots up a movie theater, school, or uses it to try and overthrow a non-tyrannical government.
I encourage those with a death-grip on their guns to put them down FOR A MOMENT, and pick up a book and read about REAL tyranny in world history.
All freedoms have some liability to them. The work of Police would be easier without the 4th amendment, the work of prosecutors easier without having to depend on juries, or having only one "bite at the apple" due to double jeopardy. Yet we accept these liabilities because they protect individuals from the tyranny of government (and each other).
I have a right to keep and bear arms. That right should not be infringed, but in NYC it is. Right now I have to pay $1000 in fees and wait 3-6 months just to own a revolver in my own apartment.
Sure. Which is why one must be a peaceable law abiding citizen. The problem with your logic is when you remove rights of peaceable law abiding citizens due to the actions of violent law breaking citizens.I disagree. It remains a right until a constitutional amendment removes that right.
You can abuse rights. You can abuse freedom of speech by inciting violence. You can abuse the 2nd Amendment FAR easier, causing it to be a liability. This is common sense, unless you think lead moving at 3,000 feet per second can't hurt anyone.
The problem with your logic is that you believe holding a gun makes your ideals the greatest. It doesn't. Freedom of speech allows the prevailing of the best ideas. Gun rights merely allows the prevalence of "might makes right" even if the "citizen" exercising the right is actually very, very wrong.
Guns actually prevent "might makes right" from being the law of the land. Remove guns and you are back to the biggest and strongest among us being able to boss others around.
Bad situation for women most of all.
No. The 2nd amendment is still in force. Would you remove my 2nd amendment right because of something someone else did? Do you want to ban all guns? Would you like all guns to be confiscated?Would you remove my right of free speech based on someone else abusing theirs.Conversely, by your logic, the 1st Amendment becomes "a liability -- not a right -- when the people who are apt to use it wish to destroy the country with it."This would seem a more noble subject if Republicans didn't threaten armed overthrow of the government because Obama sought to lower health-care costs.
Sorry, but the 2nd Amendment becomes a liability -- not a right -- when the people who are apt to use it wish to destroy the country with it.
Freedom of speech involves the exchange of ideas, not bullets. Don't know the difference? Then wow, I think you need to go back to basic 4th grade physics.
One could argue that was already done with "time, place and manner" restrictions.
Sure. Which is why one must be a peaceable law abiding citizen. The problem with your logic is when you remove rights of peaceable law abiding citizens due to the actions of violent law breaking citizens.I disagree. It remains a right until a constitutional amendment removes that right.
You can abuse rights. You can abuse freedom of speech by inciting violence. You can abuse the 2nd Amendment FAR easier, causing it to be a liability. This is common sense, unless you think lead moving at 3,000 feet per second can't hurt anyone.
The problem with your logic is that you believe holding a gun makes your ideals the greatest. It doesn't. Freedom of speech allows the prevailing of the best ideas. Gun rights merely allows the prevalence of "might makes right" even if the "citizen" exercising the right is actually very, very wrong.
Guns actually prevent "might makes right" from being the law of the land. Remove guns and you are back to the biggest and strongest among us being able to boss others around.
Bad situation for women most of all.
Ah yes, nothing says "peaceful world" like millions of people pointing guns at each other in a Mexican standoff.
Sure. That doesn't make it right or legal. But it is what it is.By any objective measure the 2nd amendment is a right. In fact, it is an explicitly granted right. One in which the bearer does not need to earn other than being a peaceable law abiding citizen. So regardless of your opinions of republicans all peaceable law abiding citizens have a 2nd amendment right and nothing any other citizen does can negate their right. Let me know when the supposed armed over throw begins because of Obamacare.
It BECOMES a liability when someone shoots up a movie theater, school, or uses it to try and overthrow a non-tyrannical government.
I encourage those with a death-grip on their guns to put them down FOR A MOMENT, and pick up a book and read about REAL tyranny in world history.
All freedoms have some liability to them. The work of Police would be easier without the 4th amendment, the work of prosecutors easier without having to depend on juries, or having only one "bite at the apple" due to double jeopardy. Yet we accept these liabilities because they protect individuals from the tyranny of government (and each other).
I have a right to keep and bear arms. That right should not be infringed, but in NYC it is. Right now I have to pay $1000 in fees and wait 3-6 months just to own a revolver in my own apartment.
If progressive gun control types actually respected the constitution as they say they do, it shouldn't even be in effect.
Sure. Which is why one must be a peaceable law abiding citizen. The problem with your logic is when you remove rights of peaceable law abiding citizens due to the actions of violent law breaking citizens.You can abuse rights. You can abuse freedom of speech by inciting violence. You can abuse the 2nd Amendment FAR easier, causing it to be a liability. This is common sense, unless you think lead moving at 3,000 feet per second can't hurt anyone.
The problem with your logic is that you believe holding a gun makes your ideals the greatest. It doesn't. Freedom of speech allows the prevailing of the best ideas. Gun rights merely allows the prevalence of "might makes right" even if the "citizen" exercising the right is actually very, very wrong.
Guns actually prevent "might makes right" from being the law of the land. Remove guns and you are back to the biggest and strongest among us being able to boss others around.
Bad situation for women most of all.
Ah yes, nothing says "peaceful world" like millions of people pointing guns at each other in a Mexican standoff.
Interesting analogy, but not applicable.
Just like fences make better neighbors, people being able to defend themselves make better citizens.
By any objective measure the 2nd amendment is a right. In fact, it is an explicitly granted right. One in which the bearer does not need to earn other than being a peaceable law abiding citizen. So regardless of your opinions of republicans all peaceable law abiding citizens have a 2nd amendment right and nothing any other citizen does can negate their right. Let me know when the supposed armed over throw begins because of Obamacare.
It BECOMES a liability when someone shoots up a movie theater, school, or uses it to try and overthrow a non-tyrannical government.
I encourage those with a death-grip on their guns to put them down FOR A MOMENT, and pick up a book and read about REAL tyranny in world history.
All freedoms have some liability to them. The work of Police would be easier without the 4th amendment, the work of prosecutors easier without having to depend on juries, or having only one "bite at the apple" due to double jeopardy. Yet we accept these liabilities because they protect individuals from the tyranny of government (and each other).
I have a right to keep and bear arms. That right should not be infringed, but in NYC it is. Right now I have to pay $1000 in fees and wait 3-6 months just to own a revolver in my own apartment.
Obviously you are not able to comply with CDZ rules.I'm insulting the ridiculous and inaccurate comic. If you can't tell the difference, kindly take your hurt feelings off the thread.
Obviously you are not able to comply with CDZ rules.I'm insulting the ridiculous and inaccurate comic. If you can't tell the difference, kindly take your hurt feelings off the thread.
How many of those oft-quoted "33,000" are murders and how many are suicides? Will banning guns prevent suicide?...We trade 33,000 lives for what benefit? Feeling tough? An adrenaline rush? The occasional hunt?
Awesome! Now, can you get back on topic of how our Second Amendment rights are an important part of protecting our rights?Show me the rule that says I cannot ridicule an idea. You've now made this personal, so YOU'RE violating CDZ rules. You've been reported.
How many of those oft-quoted "33,000" are murders and how many are suicides? Will banning guns prevent suicide?
How many lives do we trade for the convenience of personal transportation and how many could be saved by mandating mass transit?
Awesome! Now, can you get back on topic of how our Second Amendment rights are an important part of protecting our rights?Show me the rule that says I cannot ridicule an idea. You've now made this personal, so YOU'RE violating CDZ rules. You've been reported.
No. The 2nd amendment is still in force. Would you remove my 2nd amendment right because of something someone else did? Do you want to ban all guns? Would you like all guns to be confiscated?Would you remove my right of free speech based on someone else abusing theirs.Conversely, by your logic, the 1st Amendment becomes "a liability -- not a right -- when the people who are apt to use it wish to destroy the country with it."
Freedom of speech involves the exchange of ideas, not bullets. Don't know the difference? Then wow, I think you need to go back to basic 4th grade physics.
One could argue that was already done with "time, place and manner" restrictions.
I believe owning a gun should be akin to getting a pilot's license. You should have a great deal of training, extensive background checks, proven you have a safe place to store the weapons, and guns should have fingerprint operation, and registration.
Guns kill as many people as cars in this country, yet provide not even .01% of the utility of vehicles in this country. We trade 33,000 lives for what benefit? Feeling tough? An adrenaline rush? The occasional hunt?
I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. I believe you are mistaken about guns killing as many people as cars. The last statistics I saw from the FBI showed ~8000 gun deaths. Surely you are not including suicides, right? But putting that aside I have received extensive training and store my weapons in a safe. Would you like to take away my 2nd amendment rights? As to the reason for why we have the 2nd amendment that was answered extensively in the title thread.No. The 2nd amendment is still in force. Would you remove my 2nd amendment right because of something someone else did? Do you want to ban all guns? Would you like all guns to be confiscated?Would you remove my right of free speech based on someone else abusing theirs.Conversely, by your logic, the 1st Amendment becomes "a liability -- not a right -- when the people who are apt to use it wish to destroy the country with it."
Freedom of speech involves the exchange of ideas, not bullets. Don't know the difference? Then wow, I think you need to go back to basic 4th grade physics.
One could argue that was already done with "time, place and manner" restrictions.
I believe owning a gun should be akin to getting a pilot's license. You should have a great deal of training, extensive background checks, proven you have a safe place to store the weapons, and guns should have fingerprint operation, and registration.
Guns kill as many people as cars in this country, yet provide not even .01% of the utility of vehicles in this country. We trade 33,000 lives for what benefit? Feeling tough? An adrenaline rush? The occasional hunt?
Awesome! Now, can you get back on topic of how our Second Amendment rights are an important part of protecting our rights?Show me the rule that says I cannot ridicule an idea. You've now made this personal, so YOU'RE violating CDZ rules. You've been reported.
Why don't you stop sniping childishly and pay attention? I've been schooling you on the 2nd Amendment for post after post.
I'm not sure where you are getting your information from. I believe you are mistaken about guns killing as many people as cars. The last statistics I saw from the FBI showed ~8000 gun deaths. Surely you are not including suicides, right? But putting that aside I have received extensive training and store my weapons in a safe. Would you like to take away my 2nd amendment rights? As to the reason for why we have the 2nd amendment that was answered extensively in the title thread.No. The 2nd amendment is still in force. Would you remove my 2nd amendment right because of something someone else did? Do you want to ban all guns? Would you like all guns to be confiscated?Would you remove my right of free speech based on someone else abusing theirs.Freedom of speech involves the exchange of ideas, not bullets. Don't know the difference? Then wow, I think you need to go back to basic 4th grade physics.
One could argue that was already done with "time, place and manner" restrictions.
I believe owning a gun should be akin to getting a pilot's license. You should have a great deal of training, extensive background checks, proven you have a safe place to store the weapons, and guns should have fingerprint operation, and registration.
Guns kill as many people as cars in this country, yet provide not even .01% of the utility of vehicles in this country. We trade 33,000 lives for what benefit? Feeling tough? An adrenaline rush? The occasional hunt?
No. The 2nd amendment is still in force. Would you remove my 2nd amendment right because of something someone else did? Do you want to ban all guns? Would you like all guns to be confiscated?Would you remove my right of free speech based on someone else abusing theirs.Freedom of speech involves the exchange of ideas, not bullets. Don't know the difference? Then wow, I think you need to go back to basic 4th grade physics.
One could argue that was already done with "time, place and manner" restrictions.
I believe owning a gun should be akin to getting a pilot's license. You should have a great deal of training, extensive background checks, proven you have a safe place to store the weapons, and guns should have fingerprint operation, and registration.
Guns kill as many people as cars in this country, yet provide not even .01% of the utility of vehicles in this country. We trade 33,000 lives for what benefit? Feeling tough? An adrenaline rush? The occasional hunt?
Nope. How about we require the same for voting? Or getting an abortion?
A right is a right. and all that training/background checking/storage will not stop some nutter from getting one and shooting up a school, or some gang banger from hitting innocent people during a drive by. It would just allow government to de facto ban gun ownership via onerous fees and waiting periods.
Repeal the 2nd amendment first, then you can talk about what you want.
