ClosedCaption
Diamond Member
- Sep 15, 2010
- 53,233
- 6,719
- 1,830
^^Doesnt like States Rights
States rights don't apply to explicit personal rights found in the US constitution.
Republican Bloomberg huh
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.
^^Doesnt like States Rights
States rights don't apply to explicit personal rights found in the US constitution.
Another example of the straw man built by the right wing. If liberals were anything like the right wing tries to describe us, I would be a republican too. It's obvious that the only way the right can hang on to their base and keep the teabaggers stirred up is to convince them that liberals want all kinds of made up horrible things. The desire to repeal the 2nd is just another of those made up claims.
Kudos to you. It's amazing how cons believe anyone other than a far right wing con is a Marxist or Communist wanting for the old Soviet Union as the best form of government. It's amazing the stupid shit that cons actually believe.
We all know that's what they really want. We all know all of their "stealth" legislation designed to slowly chip away at making practical use of that right is just that. Every year or so they bring out a new campaign against "assault weapons" or clips with more than three rounds in it. So why can't they just man up and be open about what they're trying to do? I'd honestly have a lot more respect for them if they started growing a spine and talking about their goals and agenda directly instead of trying to talk around it and find ways to make it palatable to the general public. One of those goals is banning guns. Everyone knows this. It's not like they can try to hide it and this point, so there's not really a point in trying to lie about it. They might as well just openly admit that they believe it's an outdated piece of legislation which has outlived its purpose. Hell, they'd technically even be right.
"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." The "well regulated Militia" it mentions barely even exists as a functional structure anymore. The Army of the United States hasn't existed since the draft. The state defense forces are pretty much rendered an extra, useless expense by the National Guard, which is why the majority of states don't even have one anymore. The general public has zero military training or desire to be part of anything like that, which is why they would prefer to pay for a huge federal standing army rather than revive and participate in the militia system the amendment is talking about.
libs just make it hard to own certain guns or ammo Bulldog . Regulate magazines , ban some ammunition here and there . Regulate the AR15 as the libs have done in California and a few other state . Also look at new York that 'Marty' mentions . Look at his reasoning that I agree with . Regulate , regulate , regulate and that neuters the 2nd amendment RIGHT to nothing resembling what the 2nd is supposed to be . 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting and target shooting .
^^Doesnt like States Rights
States rights don't apply to explicit personal rights found in the US constitution.
Republican Bloomberg huh
^^Doesnt like States Rights
States rights don't apply to explicit personal rights found in the US constitution.
Republican Bloomberg huh
he was a democrat before he was a republican before he was an independent.
RoadrunnerConservatives should introduce an amendment to repeal the 14th.It would cause an armed Insurrection.
We all know that's what they really want. We all know all of their "stealth" legislation designed to slowly chip away at making practical use of that right is just that. Every year or so they bring out a new campaign against "assault weapons" or clips with more than three rounds in it. So why can't they just man up and be open about what they're trying to do? I'd honestly have a lot more respect for them if they started growing a spine and talking about their goals and agenda directly instead of trying to talk around it and find ways to make it palatable to the general public. One of those goals is banning guns. Everyone knows this. It's not like they can try to hide it and this point, so there's not really a point in trying to lie about it. They might as well just openly admit that they believe it's an outdated piece of legislation which has outlived its purpose. Hell, they'd technically even be right.
"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." The "well regulated Militia" it mentions barely even exists as a functional structure anymore. The Army of the United States hasn't existed since the draft. The state defense forces are pretty much rendered an extra, useless expense by the National Guard, which is why the majority of states don't even have one anymore. The general public has zero military training or desire to be part of anything like that, which is why they would prefer to pay for a huge federal standing army rather than revive and participate in the militia system the amendment is talking about.
Dear Pedro de San Patricio
The police, veterans and retired vets, and citizens who live by the same code of honor and oath to uphold the Constitution
are alive and well.
Just because YOU don't lay your life on the line to defend the Constitution on a daily basis, as a principle in life,
doesn't mean other people don't.
One Constitutionalist (not a Christian but agnostic and secular) I know just won another recognition for saving the life of a teacher who had collapsed from heart failure and needed CPR and a fibrillator applied, in order to fully recover.
Had citizens like him been around, maybe Eric Garner would be alive instead of left to die on the ground.
The same commitment to public safety that makes this man a gun rights activist
also shows in his teaching and his public behavior, where he has broken up fights before, and kept the peace.
I'm sorry you don't see this going on, but in Texas, it's a way of life to enforce laws yourself
and don't rely on government except what you contribute equally.
P.S. as for the Second Amendment, I suggest an agreement to interpret
"right of the people" to "right of law abiding citizens" so it is clear that firearms
are for defense of law and law enforcement, and not for abusing or committing crimes.
That would reward more people for taking the same oath and training as police and military officers
in order to earn and enforce the rights and responsibilities for bearing arms.
You don't want to punish people "you don't believe exist anymore" by taking away
their rights to enforce laws; I'd rather reward and encourage more public engagement and involvement
so this REDUCES crime and violence by having an educated and trained citizenry who respects the law as equals.
auditor0007Another example of the straw man built by the right wing. If liberals were anything like the right wing tries to describe us, I would be a republican too. It's obvious that the only way the right can hang on to their base and keep the teabaggers stirred up is to convince them that liberals want all kinds of made up horrible things. The desire to repeal the 2nd is just another of those made up claims.
Kudos to you. It's amazing how cons believe anyone other than a far right wing con is a Marxist or Communist wanting for the old Soviet Union as the best form of government. It's amazing the stupid shit that cons actually believe.
14th is just too screwed up.RoadrunnerConservatives should introduce an amendment to repeal the 14th.It would cause an armed Insurrection.
No, they should demand that the Fourteenth be applied and enforced equally,
to show the ACA mandates are unconstitutional by discriminating on the basis of CREED,
favoring and exempting believers in health care rights over citizens who believe in states' rights punished with taxes
that other citizens are exempted from based on regulations (including religious rules) mandated by government.
^^Doesnt like States Rights
States rights don't apply to explicit personal rights found in the US constitution.
Republican Bloomberg huh
he was a democrat before he was a republican before he was an independent.
He ran as a republican and was voted for as a republican. Dont run from it
We all know that's what they really want. We all know all of their "stealth" legislation designed to slowly chip away at making practical use of that right is just that. Every year or so they bring out a new campaign against "assault weapons" or clips with more than three rounds in it. So why can't they just man up and be open about what they're trying to do? I'd honestly have a lot more respect for them if they started growing a spine and talking about their goals and agenda directly instead of trying to talk around it and find ways to make it palatable to the general public. One of those goals is banning guns. Everyone knows this. It's not like they can try to hide it and this point, so there's not really a point in trying to lie about it. They might as well just openly admit that they believe it's an outdated piece of legislation which has outlived its purpose. Hell, they'd technically even be right.
"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." The "well regulated Militia" it mentions barely even exists as a functional structure anymore. The Army of the United States hasn't existed since the draft. The state defense forces are pretty much rendered an extra, useless expense by the National Guard, which is why the majority of states don't even have one anymore. The general public has zero military training or desire to be part of anything like that, which is why they would prefer to pay for a huge federal standing army rather than revive and participate in the militia system the amendment is talking about.
Dear Pedro de San Patricio
The police, veterans and retired vets, and citizens who live by the same code of honor and oath to uphold the Constitution
are alive and well.
Just because YOU don't lay your life on the line to defend the Constitution on a daily basis, as a principle in life,
doesn't mean other people don't.
One Constitutionalist (not a Christian but agnostic and secular) I know just won another recognition for saving the life of a teacher who had collapsed from heart failure and needed CPR and a fibrillator applied, in order to fully recover.
Had citizens like him been around, maybe Eric Garner would be alive instead of left to die on the ground.
The same commitment to public safety that makes this man a gun rights activist
also shows in his teaching and his public behavior, where he has broken up fights before, and kept the peace.
I'm sorry you don't see this going on, but in Texas, it's a way of life to enforce laws yourself
and don't rely on government except what you contribute equally.
P.S. as for the Second Amendment, I suggest an agreement to interpret
"right of the people" to "right of law abiding citizens" so it is clear that firearms
are for defense of law and law enforcement, and not for abusing or committing crimes.
That would reward more people for taking the same oath and training as police and military officers
in order to earn and enforce the rights and responsibilities for bearing arms.
You don't want to punish people "you don't believe exist anymore" by taking away
their rights to enforce laws; I'd rather reward and encourage more public engagement and involvement
so this REDUCES crime and violence by having an educated and trained citizenry who respects the law as equals.
There s a big difference between being a good Samaritan, and being a vigilante. I agree, there are too many vigilantes in Texas.
We all know that's what they really want. We all know all of their "stealth" legislation designed to slowly chip away at making practical use of that right is just that. Every year or so they bring out a new campaign against "assault weapons" or clips with more than three rounds in it. So why can't they just man up and be open about what they're trying to do? I'd honestly have a lot more respect for them if they started growing a spine and talking about their goals and agenda directly instead of trying to talk around it and find ways to make it palatable to the general public. One of those goals is banning guns. Everyone knows this. It's not like they can try to hide it and this point, so there's not really a point in trying to lie about it. They might as well just openly admit that they believe it's an outdated piece of legislation which has outlived its purpose. Hell, they'd technically even be right.
"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." The "well regulated Militia" it mentions barely even exists as a functional structure anymore. The Army of the United States hasn't existed since the draft. The state defense forces are pretty much rendered an extra, useless expense by the National Guard, which is why the majority of states don't even have one anymore. The general public has zero military training or desire to be part of anything like that, which is why they would prefer to pay for a huge federal standing army rather than revive and participate in the militia system the amendment is talking about.
Dear Pedro de San Patricio
The police, veterans and retired vets, and citizens who live by the same code of honor and oath to uphold the Constitution
are alive and well.
Just because YOU don't lay your life on the line to defend the Constitution on a daily basis, as a principle in life,
doesn't mean other people don't.
One Constitutionalist (not a Christian but agnostic and secular) I know just won another recognition for saving the life of a teacher who had collapsed from heart failure and needed CPR and a fibrillator applied, in order to fully recover.
Had citizens like him been around, maybe Eric Garner would be alive instead of left to die on the ground.
The same commitment to public safety that makes this man a gun rights activist
also shows in his teaching and his public behavior, where he has broken up fights before, and kept the peace.
I'm sorry you don't see this going on, but in Texas, it's a way of life to enforce laws yourself
and don't rely on government except what you contribute equally.
P.S. as for the Second Amendment, I suggest an agreement to interpret
"right of the people" to "right of law abiding citizens" so it is clear that firearms
are for defense of law and law enforcement, and not for abusing or committing crimes.
That would reward more people for taking the same oath and training as police and military officers
in order to earn and enforce the rights and responsibilities for bearing arms.
You don't want to punish people "you don't believe exist anymore" by taking away
their rights to enforce laws; I'd rather reward and encourage more public engagement and involvement
so this REDUCES crime and violence by having an educated and trained citizenry who respects the law as equals.
There s a big difference between being a good Samaritan, and being a vigilante. I agree, there are too many vigilantes in Texas.
Well, you can't throw the baby out with the bathwater.
The same people who believe in enforcing laws responsibly also deserve gun rights and a say in legislation affecting their rights and beliefs.
There are better ways to address the criminals and mentally ill who pose a threat to public safety
without depriving liberties from law abiding citizens.
You live under a rock?,many people form the left have and will say just what you deny.The OP: Dems want to take your guns!! Sure they havent said it, done it, proposed it or anything like that but that doesnt mean nuffin!
You live under a rock?,many people form the left have and will say just what you deny.The OP: Dems want to take your guns!! Sure they havent said it, done it, proposed it or anything like that but that doesnt mean nuffin!
Convenient memory fade?