Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
People who attack others' lives even metaphorically are too dangerous to ever be allowed to own...........
I took a test, duh.
BTW, were there a lot of bigots in your PD, or were you the only one?
Which test and when? SB5, WAIS? Or was it one of those on-line whose validity and reliabiltiy are not noted. I ask because in Grad School I took a two semester coursed in "Testing for Counselors". A course where we tool most of the standardized tests and learned to score them.
I'm not intolerant of all gun owners, only those who have little tiny man organs and need to parade their guns around. Kind of like those guys in trench coats though they rarely hurt anyone.
Instead of repeating your fixation about "tiny little man organs:" you MIGHT go out on the web and view how QUICKLY you can fire thru 10 round magazines... It's a "feel good" thing... You know the stuff that lefties want to have to SAY they've fixed the "crazy shooter" problem.....
That gives you a hard on right????
No Mr. Mod, it does not give me a hard on, a question which has nothing to do with a forum on politics.
That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.
If you understood the reason for the 2nd amendment when it was written then you would also understand its relevance today
but because of your brain dead ignorance you cant understanding the reasoning why then so you cant understand the relevance now
Really? Your rebuttal is a personnel attack. If anyone is to pick someone brain dead, you would be the obvious choice.
and the 2A writers thought slavery was ok and women shouldn't voteThat said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.
View attachment 279075
^ Until then: Shutup. Idiot.
And you're psychic and can tell what they were thinking even though they didn't include either of those things in the Constitution.
Only the Military and State Forces should have large capacity magazines for Riot Control and to put down any Popular Uprising.
Moron, the 2nd Amendment was written to help protect people against tyranny and you actually want to guarantee it. BTW, idiot, now you have the government committing Posse Comitatus against the citizenry of the nation using the military and state forces to come in with high capacity automatic assault weapons to gun down and slaughter unarmed people for rioting or a mere uprising. Assholes like you are too dangerous to live and should be denied oxygen.
Posse Comitatus Act - Wikipedia
People who attack others' lives even metaphorically are too dangerous to ever be allowed to own, possess or have in their custody and control a gun, a knife, a car, etc, and ought to be put in a cage 24/7/365.
I advise you to read the supreme court decision Heller vs DCA well regulated militia is todays military.
I know what that decision was. Dred Scott was a supreme court decision too.I advise you to read the supreme court decision Heller vs DCA well regulated militia is todays military.
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes
there is no excuse for your ignorance, its settled law
Why does anyone need to vape?By Mark Almonte
03/04/2013
This article focuses on pistols with high-capacity magazines (a magazine that holds more than ten bullets). The same arguments in my recent article on assault weapons could apply to high-capacity magazines for rifles.
There are several reasons for civilians to own high-capacity magazines: the right to possess the necessary means to effectively defend themselves, misconception of bullet stopping power and shooting accuracy, and the issue of multiple attackers. Additionally, on a net balance, there are benefits to the community when law-abiding citizens own guns with high-capacity magazines. William Levinson at American Thinker smartly posed the question, "Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?"
All of us would agree that in a civilized society, people have a right to self-defense. The next logical progression is that the right to self-defense implies a right to the necessary means to effectively defend oneself.
Jeffrey Snyder at the Cato Institute points out that victims don't choose where and when they will be attacked. It is the criminal who decides. The criminal will wait until the victim is most vunerable, until he is alone, or when the police are gone. He will try to have every advantage over the victim, whether it be an armed advantage, strength, or outnumbering his prey. Mr. Snyder states, "The encounter will not be on equal terms; the fight will not be 'fair.'"
(Excerpt)
Read more:
Articles: Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?
Which test and when? SB5, WAIS? Or was it one of those on-line whose validity and reliabiltiy are not noted. I ask because in Grad School I took a two semester coursed in "Testing for Counselors". A course where we tool most of the standardized tests and learned to score them.
I'm not intolerant of all gun owners, only those who have little tiny man organs and need to parade their guns around. Kind of like those guys in trench coats though they rarely hurt anyone.
Instead of repeating your fixation about "tiny little man organs:" you MIGHT go out on the web and view how QUICKLY you can fire thru 10 round magazines... It's a "feel good" thing... You know the stuff that lefties want to have to SAY they've fixed the "crazy shooter" problem.....
That gives you a hard on right????
No Mr. Mod, it does not give me a hard on, a question which has nothing to do with a forum on politics.
That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.
If you understood the reason for the 2nd amendment when it was written then you would also understand its relevance today
but because of your brain dead ignorance you cant understanding the reasoning why then so you cant understand the relevance now
Really? Your rebuttal is a personnel attack. If anyone is to pick someone brain dead, you would be the obvious choice.
You that feeble that you can't go out and READ the Founder's statements on gun possession? Or their SPECIFIC remarks about the 2nd Amendments.. There's no brain picking required...
If I thought you really CARED to understand the justifications for the 2nd Amendment -- I'd go fetch them for you... But it seems you're not here to discuss any relevant support AT ALL for owning guns...
the sad part is you think this will stop criminals from killing people,,,Instead of repeating your fixation about "tiny little man organs:" you MIGHT go out on the web and view how QUICKLY you can fire thru 10 round magazines... It's a "feel good" thing... You know the stuff that lefties want to have to SAY they've fixed the "crazy shooter" problem.....
That gives you a hard on right????
No Mr. Mod, it does not give me a hard on, a question which has nothing to do with a forum on politics.
That said, mocking the insane gun owners who believe any person can own any arm because some 18th Century author wrote, "shall not be infringed" is as obsolete today as it was in 1791.
If you understood the reason for the 2nd amendment when it was written then you would also understand its relevance today
but because of your brain dead ignorance you cant understanding the reasoning why then so you cant understand the relevance now
Really? Your rebuttal is a personnel attack. If anyone is to pick someone brain dead, you would be the obvious choice.
You that feeble that you can't go out and READ the Founder's statements on gun possession? Or their SPECIFIC remarks about the 2nd Amendments.. There's no brain picking required...
If I thought you really CARED to understand the justifications for the 2nd Amendment -- I'd go fetch them for you... But it seems you're not here to discuss any relevant support AT ALL for owning guns...
My points are quite simple, even you might grasp them if you put your biases aside:
- "Shall not be infringed" has exceptions, even Scalia's decision in Heller has exceptions
- I support any citizen who is sober, sane and law abiding the right to own defensive weapons, or sporting guns.
- How do we decide who is sober, sane and law abiding unless a viable background check is established?
- What good is a background check if some gun transfers are completed in secret?
- If all those who want to own or possess a gun are required to be licensed, and all guns are registered, our nation will be safer and more civilized.
- Gun confiscation is impractical, too costly and prohibition never works.
Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?
the sad part is you think this will stop criminals from killing people,,,
theyre criminals and dont care about your background checks or laws
Nothing in your post negates my point in any way.wrong--modern communication limitedalready answered in a previous postHow do you know?they obviously did not mean ARs---this is undeniable
OK.. now tell my you think that matters:
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Roseanne Barr!!!!!! FIRED for using Twitter
It’s not just Roseanne – five other celebrities guilty of racist outbursts
When is an online threat illegal and when is it free speech?
etc to infinity
....wrong--DUMBASS---if your civil rights/rights are violated, the government would/will get involved
You cannot demonstrate this to be true.
- If all those who want to own or possess a gun are required to be licensed, and all guns are registered, our nation will be safer and more civilized.
Why is 10 the magic number for cut off? Who came up with the formula?By Mark Almonte
03/04/2013
This article focuses on pistols with high-capacity magazines (a magazine that holds more than ten bullets). The same arguments in my recent article on assault weapons could apply to high-capacity magazines for rifles.
There are several reasons for civilians to own high-capacity magazines: the right to possess the necessary means to effectively defend themselves, misconception of bullet stopping power and shooting accuracy, and the issue of multiple attackers. Additionally, on a net balance, there are benefits to the community when law-abiding citizens own guns with high-capacity magazines. William Levinson at American Thinker smartly posed the question, "Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?"
All of us would agree that in a civilized society, people have a right to self-defense. The next logical progression is that the right to self-defense implies a right to the necessary means to effectively defend oneself.
Jeffrey Snyder at the Cato Institute points out that victims don't choose where and when they will be attacked. It is the criminal who decides. The criminal will wait until the victim is most vunerable, until he is alone, or when the police are gone. He will try to have every advantage over the victim, whether it be an armed advantage, strength, or outnumbering his prey. Mr. Snyder states, "The encounter will not be on equal terms; the fight will not be 'fair.'"
(Excerpt)
Read more:
Articles: Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?
Why is 10 the magic number for cut off? Who came up with the formula?By Mark Almonte
03/04/2013
This article focuses on pistols with high-capacity magazines (a magazine that holds more than ten bullets). The same arguments in my recent article on assault weapons could apply to high-capacity magazines for rifles.
There are several reasons for civilians to own high-capacity magazines: the right to possess the necessary means to effectively defend themselves, misconception of bullet stopping power and shooting accuracy, and the issue of multiple attackers. Additionally, on a net balance, there are benefits to the community when law-abiding citizens own guns with high-capacity magazines. William Levinson at American Thinker smartly posed the question, "Do you believe that all human beings have a natural and inherent right to defend themselves from violent attack?"
All of us would agree that in a civilized society, people have a right to self-defense. The next logical progression is that the right to self-defense implies a right to the necessary means to effectively defend oneself.
Jeffrey Snyder at the Cato Institute points out that victims don't choose where and when they will be attacked. It is the criminal who decides. The criminal will wait until the victim is most vunerable, until he is alone, or when the police are gone. He will try to have every advantage over the victim, whether it be an armed advantage, strength, or outnumbering his prey. Mr. Snyder states, "The encounter will not be on equal terms; the fight will not be 'fair.'"
(Excerpt)
Read more:
Articles: Why does anyone need a high-capacity magazine?
The words "arbitrary" and "capricious" come to mind.Why is 10 the magic number for cut off? Who came up with the formula?
My point is how did whom ever come up with the formula for the needed number for self defenseThe words "arbitrary" and "capricious" come to mind.Why is 10 the magic number for cut off? Who came up with the formula?
They didn't - they picked a number out of their arse.My point is how did whom ever come up with the formula for the needed number for self defenseThe words "arbitrary" and "capricious" come to mind.Why is 10 the magic number for cut off? Who came up with the formula?
