Why we can not trust a "compromise" on the 2nd Amendment

[Pete7469]

Coulter: We Don't Trust You

This isn't some profound new insight of course, even my dumbass has been ranting about the fact that you can not "compromise" with democrooks here for years. Ann Coulter's opinion piece is dead on with examples as to why these sniveling pukes just need to be defeated.

In 1994, nearly 60% of Californians voted to deny government services to illegal aliens. Proposition 187 was approved 59% to 41%, with the votes of 56% of African Americans, 57% of Asians — and even a third of Hispanics. It won in every county of California except San Francisco. In heavily Latino Los Angeles County, Proposition 187 passed by a 12-point margin.

So it was "the law of the land" right? Like after the meat puppet faggot and his minions passed obozocare to destroy the healthcare system and waste billions of dollars, we were told to accept it.

Liberals said: No problem, we’ll take the case to a left-wing, Carter-appointed federal judge who will overturn the will of the voters! District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer held that the perfectly constitutional law was “unconstitutional” and, today, California taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars on food, housing, education, health care and prison cells for illegal immigrants.

Yet when obozocare was taken to court, and hacked away at by Trump the wailing and gnashing of teeth was tangible.

In 2008, Californians voted against gay marriage. Again, this was California — not South Carolina — and voters decided, 52% to 48%, that “marriage” is not between a mailbox and a chimpanzee, a rhododendron and refrigerator, but only between a man and woman.

I recall how Sealy Mattress stock exploded the day afterwards because of how many libturds soaked their beds from binge drinking. They got their moonbat messiah elected, but low and behold... queer weddings were not embraced in the lunatic asylum of commiefornia? So they woke up, tossed out yet another piss soaked bed and called their lawyers.

Liberals said to themselves: No problem. We’ll just find a gay district court judge to overturn the vote. This will be a piece of cake.

What about "respect for the democratic process" you say? Pffft... You still believe these fascist parasites are "Democrats" or (LOL...) "Progressive"? They're just as concerned about "civil liberties" as the Autistic Communist Lawyers Union is.

They also said, Not only are we going to reverse the vote, but we will name and shame the people on the other side (except African Americans, who voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8, much to the embarrassment of progressives). People found to have donated to the marriage initiative would be driven out of their jobs, fired from high-tech firms they founded, and chased from Mexican restaurants.

Not only are leftists the most intolerant "side" of the political spectrum, they're the most tyrannical and when it comes to "Right Vs. Wrong" they seem to believe that in order to be consistent in their hatred for "The Right" that they have to be "Wrong" just for good measure. So when I see a moonbat demanding "compromise" I know that if the republicrats fall for it, the result will be at least half wrong, and that the fascist left will undo or ignore anything righteous about it.

These "people" can not be trusted.


.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

No more compromises. On anything.

 

[toobfreak]

Coulter: We Don't Trust You

This isn't some profound new insight of course, even my dumbass has been ranting about the fact that you can not "compromise" with democrooks here for years. Ann Coulter's opinion piece is dead on with examples as to why these sniveling pukes just need to be defeated.

In 1994, nearly 60% of Californians voted to deny government services to illegal aliens. Proposition 187 was approved 59% to 41%, with the votes of 56% of African Americans, 57% of Asians — and even a third of Hispanics. It won in every county of California except San Francisco. In heavily Latino Los Angeles County, Proposition 187 passed by a 12-point margin.

So it was "the law of the land" right? Like after the meat puppet faggot and his minions passed obozocare to destroy the healthcare system and waste billions of dollars, we were told to accept it.

Liberals said: No problem, we’ll take the case to a left-wing, Carter-appointed federal judge who will overturn the will of the voters! District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer held that the perfectly constitutional law was “unconstitutional” and, today, California taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars on food, housing, education, health care and prison cells for illegal immigrants.

Yet when obozocare was taken to court, and hacked away at by Trump the wailing and gnashing of teeth was tangible.

In 2008, Californians voted against gay marriage. Again, this was California — not South Carolina — and voters decided, 52% to 48%, that “marriage” is not between a mailbox and a chimpanzee, a rhododendron and refrigerator, but only between a man and woman.

I recall how Sealy Mattress stock exploded the day afterwards because of how many libturds soaked their beds from binge drinking. They got their moonbat messiah elected, but low and behold... queer weddings were not embraced in the lunatic asylum of commiefornia? So they woke up, tossed out yet another piss soaked bed and called their lawyers.

Liberals said to themselves: No problem. We’ll just find a gay district court judge to overturn the vote. This will be a piece of cake.

What about "respect for the democratic process" you say? Pffft... You still believe these fascist parasites are "Democrats" or (LOL...) "Progressive"? They're just as concerned about "civil liberties" as the Autistic Communist Lawyers Union is.

They also said, Not only are we going to reverse the vote, but we will name and shame the people on the other side (except African Americans, who voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8, much to the embarrassment of progressives). People found to have donated to the marriage initiative would be driven out of their jobs, fired from high-tech firms they founded, and chased from Mexican restaurants.

Not only are leftists the most intolerant "side" of the political spectrum, they're the most tyrannical and when it comes to "Right Vs. Wrong" they seem to believe that in order to be consistent in their hatred for "The Right" that they have to be "Wrong" just for good measure. So when I see a moonbat demanding "compromise" I know that if the republicrats fall for it, the result will be at least half wrong, and that the fascist left will undo or ignore anything righteous about it.

These "people" can not be trusted.
.

Giving in on Gun Rights has historically been shown to always end in only one place: gun confiscation. The 2nd Amendment is like an armor shield protecting the citizenry, that once you give in on one area is like putting a dent in the shield. It only serves to prove to the gun haters, gun fearers and gun grabbers that the shield can be dented. And any piece of metal that can be dented, can eventually, slowly be damaged, penetrated, torn down and done away.

SHOW ME one population who having given up all of their gun rights into a disarmed populace years later do not look back regretting their action?

 

[midcan5]

Every day in America. Even God cries when he looks down.

Key Gun Violence Statistics | Brady

Every day, 310 people are shot in the United States. Among those:
100 people are shot and killed
210 survive gun injuries
95 are injured in an attack
61 die from suicide
10 survive a suicide attempt
1 is killed unintentionally
90 are shot unintentionally
1 is killed by legal intervention
4 are shot by legal intervention
1 died but the intent was unknown
12 are shot but the intent was unknown


I disagree with your 2nd amendment interpretation. Where does the 'well regulated' come in? "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."

"Mass shootings are by now a standard part of American life. Preparing for them has become a ritual of childhood. It’s as American as Monday Night Football, and very nearly as frequent."

Rituals of Childhood


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[TNHarley]

If retarded regressive totalitarians would look up what "well regulated" meant in that context, they wouldnt keep repeating it. It goes against their views
The second was meant for the people. You can just as easily look up what the framers said about it.
Lazy, lying totalitarians.

 

[Manonthestreet]

Every day in America. Even God cries when he looks down.

Key Gun Violence Statistics | Brady

Every day, 310 people are shot in the United States. Among those:
100 people are shot and killed
210 survive gun injuries
95 are injured in an attack
61 die from suicide
10 survive a suicide attempt
1 is killed unintentionally
90 are shot unintentionally
1 is killed by legal intervention
4 are shot by legal intervention
1 died but the intent was unknown
12 are shot but the intent was unknown


I disagree with your 2nd amendment interpretation. Where does the 'well regulated' come in? "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."

"Mass shootings are by now a standard part of American life. Preparing for them has become a ritual of childhood. It’s as American as Monday Night Football, and very nearly as frequent."

Rituals of Childhood


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Agreed, for different reasons. Question is, how far off is judgement.

 

[rightwinger]

How about we compromise and you stop killing 32,000 people a year?

 

[progressive hunter]

Every day in America. Even God cries when he looks down.

Key Gun Violence Statistics | Brady

Every day, 310 people are shot in the United States. Among those:
100 people are shot and killed
210 survive gun injuries
95 are injured in an attack
61 die from suicide
10 survive a suicide attempt
1 is killed unintentionally
90 are shot unintentionally
1 is killed by legal intervention
4 are shot by legal intervention
1 died but the intent was unknown
12 are shot but the intent was unknown


I disagree with your 2nd amendment interpretation. Where does the 'well regulated' come in? "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."

"Mass shootings are by now a standard part of American life. Preparing for them has become a ritual of childhood. It’s as American as Monday Night Football, and very nearly as frequent."

Rituals of Childhood


"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

you left out the CDC report that say between 500K to 3 millions times a yrs guns are used to stop crime and murder


and burger was an idiot

 

[progressive hunter]

How about we compromise and you stop killing 32,000 people a year?

now you want to ban cars??

 

[Vastator]

Coulter: We Don't Trust You

This isn't some profound new insight of course, even my dumbass has been ranting about the fact that you can not "compromise" with democrooks here for years. Ann Coulter's opinion piece is dead on with examples as to why these sniveling pukes just need to be defeated.

In 1994, nearly 60% of Californians voted to deny government services to illegal aliens. Proposition 187 was approved 59% to 41%, with the votes of 56% of African Americans, 57% of Asians — and even a third of Hispanics. It won in every county of California except San Francisco. In heavily Latino Los Angeles County, Proposition 187 passed by a 12-point margin.

So it was "the law of the land" right? Like after the meat puppet faggot and his minions passed obozocare to destroy the healthcare system and waste billions of dollars, we were told to accept it.

Liberals said: No problem, we’ll take the case to a left-wing, Carter-appointed federal judge who will overturn the will of the voters! District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer held that the perfectly constitutional law was “unconstitutional” and, today, California taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars on food, housing, education, health care and prison cells for illegal immigrants.

Yet when obozocare was taken to court, and hacked away at by Trump the wailing and gnashing of teeth was tangible.

In 2008, Californians voted against gay marriage. Again, this was California — not South Carolina — and voters decided, 52% to 48%, that “marriage” is not between a mailbox and a chimpanzee, a rhododendron and refrigerator, but only between a man and woman.

I recall how Sealy Mattress stock exploded the day afterwards because of how many libturds soaked their beds from binge drinking. They got their moonbat messiah elected, but low and behold... queer weddings were not embraced in the lunatic asylum of commiefornia? So they woke up, tossed out yet another piss soaked bed and called their lawyers.

Liberals said to themselves: No problem. We’ll just find a gay district court judge to overturn the vote. This will be a piece of cake.

What about "respect for the democratic process" you say? Pffft... You still believe these fascist parasites are "Democrats" or (LOL...) "Progressive"? They're just as concerned about "civil liberties" as the Autistic Communist Lawyers Union is.

They also said, Not only are we going to reverse the vote, but we will name and shame the people on the other side (except African Americans, who voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8, much to the embarrassment of progressives). People found to have donated to the marriage initiative would be driven out of their jobs, fired from high-tech firms they founded, and chased from Mexican restaurants.

Not only are leftists the most intolerant "side" of the political spectrum, they're the most tyrannical and when it comes to "Right Vs. Wrong" they seem to believe that in order to be consistent in their hatred for "The Right" that they have to be "Wrong" just for good measure. So when I see a moonbat demanding "compromise" I know that if the republicrats fall for it, the result will be at least half wrong, and that the fascist left will undo or ignore anything righteous about it.

These "people" can not be trusted.


.

The 2nd has already been heavily compromised.

 

[Oddball]

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

Every day in America. Even God cries when he looks down.

Key Gun Violence Statistics | Brady

Every day, 310 people are shot in the United States. Among those:
100 people are shot and killed
210 survive gun injuries
95 are injured in an attack
61 die from suicide
10 survive a suicide attempt
1 is killed unintentionally
90 are shot unintentionally
1 is killed by legal intervention
4 are shot by legal intervention
1 died but the intent was unknown
12 are shot but the intent was unknown


I disagree with your 2nd amendment interpretation.

That could not be more irrelevant to the issue.

Brady does not live by facts, but obsession.

 

[Votto]

Coulter: We Don't Trust You

This isn't some profound new insight of course, even my dumbass has been ranting about the fact that you can not "compromise" with democrooks here for years. Ann Coulter's opinion piece is dead on with examples as to why these sniveling pukes just need to be defeated.

In 1994, nearly 60% of Californians voted to deny government services to illegal aliens. Proposition 187 was approved 59% to 41%, with the votes of 56% of African Americans, 57% of Asians — and even a third of Hispanics. It won in every county of California except San Francisco. In heavily Latino Los Angeles County, Proposition 187 passed by a 12-point margin.

So it was "the law of the land" right? Like after the meat puppet faggot and his minions passed obozocare to destroy the healthcare system and waste billions of dollars, we were told to accept it.

Liberals said: No problem, we’ll take the case to a left-wing, Carter-appointed federal judge who will overturn the will of the voters! District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer held that the perfectly constitutional law was “unconstitutional” and, today, California taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars on food, housing, education, health care and prison cells for illegal immigrants.

Yet when obozocare was taken to court, and hacked away at by Trump the wailing and gnashing of teeth was tangible.

In 2008, Californians voted against gay marriage. Again, this was California — not South Carolina — and voters decided, 52% to 48%, that “marriage” is not between a mailbox and a chimpanzee, a rhododendron and refrigerator, but only between a man and woman.

I recall how Sealy Mattress stock exploded the day afterwards because of how many libturds soaked their beds from binge drinking. They got their moonbat messiah elected, but low and behold... queer weddings were not embraced in the lunatic asylum of commiefornia? So they woke up, tossed out yet another piss soaked bed and called their lawyers.

Liberals said to themselves: No problem. We’ll just find a gay district court judge to overturn the vote. This will be a piece of cake.

What about "respect for the democratic process" you say? Pffft... You still believe these fascist parasites are "Democrats" or (LOL...) "Progressive"? They're just as concerned about "civil liberties" as the Autistic Communist Lawyers Union is.

They also said, Not only are we going to reverse the vote, but we will name and shame the people on the other side (except African Americans, who voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8, much to the embarrassment of progressives). People found to have donated to the marriage initiative would be driven out of their jobs, fired from high-tech firms they founded, and chased from Mexican restaurants.

Not only are leftists the most intolerant "side" of the political spectrum, they're the most tyrannical and when it comes to "Right Vs. Wrong" they seem to believe that in order to be consistent in their hatred for "The Right" that they have to be "Wrong" just for good measure. So when I see a moonbat demanding "compromise" I know that if the republicrats fall for it, the result will be at least half wrong, and that the fascist left will undo or ignore anything righteous about it.

These "people" can not be trusted.


.

Compromising with the Left only entails giving up territory or principles or money, etc. to them. They just take, and take, and take, and if a deal is made where they do take, they will only want more later on, much like Hitler being appeased in Europe.

Socialists are all the same in this regard.

 

[rightwinger]

How about we compromise and you stop killing 32,000 people a year?

now you want to ban cars??

I’m willing to license drivers, register cars, conduct safety inspections and require insurance on cars

You willing to do the same with guns?

If a car kills someone, we can track down the owner
We can’t do that with guns

 

[progressive hunter]

How about we compromise and you stop killing 32,000 people a year?

now you want to ban cars??

I’m willing to license drivers, register cars, conduct safety inspections and require insurance on cars

You willing to do the same with guns?

If a car kills someone, we can track down the owner
We can’t do that with guns

well considering all that exist and we still have more deaths by cars than guns makes you a moron

and cars are not a protected right and guns are,,

and exactly how do you track down what gun committed the crime??

 

[rightwinger]

How about we compromise and you stop killing 32,000 people a year?

now you want to ban cars??

I’m willing to license drivers, register cars, conduct safety inspections and require insurance on cars

You willing to do the same with guns?

If a car kills someone, we can track down the owner
We can’t do that with guns

well considering all that exist and we still have more deaths by cars than guns makes you a moron

and cars are not a protected right and guns are,,

and exactly how do you track down what gun committed the crime??

Nothing in the Constitution prevents us from licensing gun owners, registering guns and doing background checks

It is what is called “well regulated”

 

[progressive hunter]

How about we compromise and you stop killing 32,000 people a year?

now you want to ban cars??

I’m willing to license drivers, register cars, conduct safety inspections and require insurance on cars

You willing to do the same with guns?

If a car kills someone, we can track down the owner
We can’t do that with guns

well considering all that exist and we still have more deaths by cars than guns makes you a moron

and cars are not a protected right and guns are,,

and exactly how do you track down what gun committed the crime??

Nothing in the Constitution prevents us from licensing gun owners, registering guns and doing background checks

It is what is called “well regulated”

editing the 2nd A to meet your goals is very bad form,,,

the first part of the 2nd is the qualifier for the second half which says
" the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

and exactly how do you track a gun after it commits a crime???

 

[TroglocratsRdumb]

Coulter: We Don't Trust You

This isn't some profound new insight of course, even my dumbass has been ranting about the fact that you can not "compromise" with democrooks here for years. Ann Coulter's opinion piece is dead on with examples as to why these sniveling pukes just need to be defeated.

In 1994, nearly 60% of Californians voted to deny government services to illegal aliens. Proposition 187 was approved 59% to 41%, with the votes of 56% of African Americans, 57% of Asians — and even a third of Hispanics. It won in every county of California except San Francisco. In heavily Latino Los Angeles County, Proposition 187 passed by a 12-point margin.

So it was "the law of the land" right? Like after the meat puppet faggot and his minions passed obozocare to destroy the healthcare system and waste billions of dollars, we were told to accept it.

Liberals said: No problem, we’ll take the case to a left-wing, Carter-appointed federal judge who will overturn the will of the voters! District Court Judge Mariana Pfaelzer held that the perfectly constitutional law was “unconstitutional” and, today, California taxpayers are forced to spend billions of dollars on food, housing, education, health care and prison cells for illegal immigrants.

Yet when obozocare was taken to court, and hacked away at by Trump the wailing and gnashing of teeth was tangible.

In 2008, Californians voted against gay marriage. Again, this was California — not South Carolina — and voters decided, 52% to 48%, that “marriage” is not between a mailbox and a chimpanzee, a rhododendron and refrigerator, but only between a man and woman.

I recall how Sealy Mattress stock exploded the day afterwards because of how many libturds soaked their beds from binge drinking. They got their moonbat messiah elected, but low and behold... queer weddings were not embraced in the lunatic asylum of commiefornia? So they woke up, tossed out yet another piss soaked bed and called their lawyers.

Liberals said to themselves: No problem. We’ll just find a gay district court judge to overturn the vote. This will be a piece of cake.

What about "respect for the democratic process" you say? Pffft... You still believe these fascist parasites are "Democrats" or (LOL...) "Progressive"? They're just as concerned about "civil liberties" as the Autistic Communist Lawyers Union is.

They also said, Not only are we going to reverse the vote, but we will name and shame the people on the other side (except African Americans, who voted overwhelmingly for Proposition 8, much to the embarrassment of progressives). People found to have donated to the marriage initiative would be driven out of their jobs, fired from high-tech firms they founded, and chased from Mexican restaurants.

Not only are leftists the most intolerant "side" of the political spec trum, they're the most tyrannical and when it comes to "Right Vs. Wrong" they seem to believe that in order to be consistent in their hatred for "The Right" that they have to be "Wrong" just for good measure. So when I see a moonbat demanding "compromise" I know that if the republicrats fall for it, the result will be at least half wrong, and that the fascist left will undo or ignore anything righteous about it.

These "people" can not be trusted.


.

The Dems are dangerous totalitarian fanatics.

 

[Billy_Kinetta]

How about we compromise and you stop killing 32,000 people a year?

now you want to ban cars??

I’m willing to license drivers, register cars, conduct safety inspections and require insurance on cars

You willing to do the same with guns?

No.

There is no right to drive. Rights need not be licensed or registered.

 

[Pete7469]

Nothing in the Constitution prevents us from licensing gun owners, registering guns and doing background checks

It is what is called “well regulated”