CDZ Women should embrace both owning and carrying guns as acts of personal empowerment.

[Cecilie1200]

They don't make the same because they have babies, and leftists penalize women for having babies.

And women in general are often less aggressive about asking for better wages and benefits. They also make less aggressive life choices for personal reasons. It's a very bad idea to make policy based on across-the-board, generalized statistics.

 

[Cecilie1200]

No one that I'm aware of has EVER accused Trump of being violent with women. A sexist, boorish pig, sure. Violent? No.

Grabbing a woman by the ***** IS A VIOLENT ACT, Trump supported it on video.

Here's a question for you; Can a woman that is being grabbed by the ***** shot her assailant?

No, it isn't a "violent" act. My God, could you butch up a little? Equating "unwanted" with "violent" does nothing except devalue the reality of ACTUAL violent sexual attacks. My husband sidles up and grabs me there at least once a week, and slapping his hand away probably causes more pain than the grabbing does. Geez.

Furthermore, one can't categorically say the contact WAS unwanted, since what Trump was boasting about was precisely the fact that his fame and wealth made it acceptable to the women.

So again, crass and boorish and chauvinistic? Sure. Violent? Not so much.

So you wouldn't have a problem if a stranger (male) came up to you and grabbed your crotch? Would you shoot that guy?

You wrote: "since what Trump was boasting about was precisely the fact that his fame and wealth made it acceptable to the women."

So acceptability makes it right?

Thank you for assuming facts not in evidence. OF COURSE, "unwanted doesn't mean violent" OBVIOUSLY means "I wouldn't have a problem with it." You're so clever to discern that meaning hidden in words that said nothing of the sort.

Equally obviously, I wouldn't shoot him. Know why? BECAUSE HE DIDN'T OFFER ME VIOLENCE. Which you know, or you wouldn't have asked in the first place. I would most definitely make my displeasure clear to him, in a way which would definitely make the lesson stick with him for a long time.

As for "acceptability makes it right", are you saying that you don't respect a woman's right to consent?

Battery is not a violent act? Battery is a criminal offense involving the unlawful physical acting upon a threat,

You brought up Battery, how is battery consensual.

I didn't bring up battery at all. YOU did. I believe I very clearly spoke to a situation in which I did NOT feel that violence had been offered, ie. a situation in which I didn't feel threatened, just annoyed.

And if I don't offer an objection to a behavior and instead accept it, for whatever reason, then that is consent. Pretty simple. You seem to want to invalidate the ability of women to accept and consent to things you don't approve of, as though you think they aren't competent to decide that for themselves.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Yes, the framers clearly envisioned " a well regulated" state "militia" - i.e. men signed up, trained, and armed with muskets - no women - to check any standing federal army. Therefore, of no use to the world as it is today. It is simply nonsense begging for repeal and replacement with something currently apt and sensible.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, if a word shows up, that MUST be a directive of some sort.

No, it must be there for some reason though…. When you start ignoring words out of convenience, you open yourself up to others ignoring words as well. That’s all.

Earlier you decried all of this minutia and false equivilances (sp?). I’m with you on that. It’s gotten silly. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere and you’ll be able to buy as many guns as you want. I tend to think that it’s probably unnecessary but if it makes you “feel” safer…great and more power to you. Stats show that you’re much more likely to suffer because of the decision to arm yourself than not though.

This was All I was stating.

Sure, so the government was so worried about the new country not become a tyranny, like the one that they just fought a war against, that they included an amendment in the founding document..........

That insured the tyrant would control all the “arms” until such time that said tyrant wanted the militia to have them?

Are you nuts?

The comma means “therefore” obviously.

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

Now you’re interpreting the constitution…. I interpret it differently.

Yes, because you don't understand the English language very well. It means what it means. If it doesn't, then it becomes utterly useless, and we might as well just point and grunt like cavemen.

The only thing obvious was that the framers were talking about a militia when they were talking about the right to bear arms not being infringed. Why else is it mentioned?

Many things are actually obvious, such as the fact that - in the world of the Framers - "militia" referred to able-bodied citizens. They mentioned it because they considered the ability of the citizens to fulfill that function to be important.

 

[candycorn]

Now you’re interpreting the constitution…. I interpret it differently.

No interpretation required.

Only an idiot would read it that, the government would control the very weapons that would be required to fight and over through it should it repress it’s very people.

And, the “therefore” becomes even more apparent when the comma is followed by “to keep”, which indicates “to possess.”

Sorry dude, learn our language.

Again, that is your opinion; your interpretation. Sorry, but that is what you’re doing. They thought it was important enough to include the word “militia”…. Therefore, If you want to keep and bear arms; you should have to join a militia according to the Constitution. That is what the document says. Not me.

I like what we have done with the 2nd Amendment, personally. We just have to limit Mag/Clip sizes to limit the body counts on rampage killings while still respecting the rights of gun owners.

Nope, it’s the opinion of countless scholars and justices.

And if you understood the language.....

You too

You’ve stumbled onto the truth!

Precisely! That is their OPINION. Mine is different. Mine means nothing and yours means nothing. Theirs have the force of law. This is clear evidence that the Constitution is a living document; open to interpretation and opinion.

In 200 years from now, those whose opinions have the force of law may have a different OPINION on the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment, or any other part of the constitution. Just like those who had an opinion when presented with Plessy v. Ferguson ruled differently on “separate but equal” in Brown v.s Board of education later on down the line. I hope not but some court may overturn Brown in the future.

Cuz your kinda slow, let me point to the first three words of the constitution, ya know, those that the Founders thought so highly of, they wrote them in script MUCH LARGER than the rest. "WE THE PEOPLE"

I'll even supply a link to it for ya:

United States Constitution - Wikipedia

They obviously highlighted those because they didn't want any confusion. It did not say, we the Congress, we the courts or we the progressives, it was WE THE PEOPLE. All inclusive isn't it? No interpretation needed, it means all citizens.

Now scroll down to the second amendment and the words the founders used were "the peoples". See the similarity? All inclusive again. The rights of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms (weapons) shall not be infringed.

There really is no doubt that, to insure a free state, the Founders were establishing the method in which "the people" were capable to fight a government hellbent on removing rights from "the people"

You scrolled past the part about the militia.

Anyway you agreed with the point I was making that it is open to interpretation (talk about slow!!!)…it took a couple of days but it finally happened. Applause.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Yes, the framers clearly envisioned " a well regulated" state "militia" - i.e. men signed up, trained, and armed with muskets - no women - to check any standing federal army. Therefore, of no use to the world as it is today. It is simply nonsense begging for repeal and replacement with something currently apt and sensible.

Wrong. Pretty much every word of it.

And when you bring me a group of people as brilliant and farsighted as the Framers, we'll talk about rewriting the Constitution. But I promise you, YOU are not qualified to improve on their work.

 

[candycorn]

No, it must be there for some reason though…. When you start ignoring words out of convenience, you open yourself up to others ignoring words as well. That’s all.

Earlier you decried all of this minutia and false equivilances (sp?). I’m with you on that. It’s gotten silly. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere and you’ll be able to buy as many guns as you want. I tend to think that it’s probably unnecessary but if it makes you “feel” safer…great and more power to you. Stats show that you’re much more likely to suffer because of the decision to arm yourself than not though.

This was All I was stating.

Sure, so the government was so worried about the new country not become a tyranny, like the one that they just fought a war against, that they included an amendment in the founding document..........

That insured the tyrant would control all the “arms” until such time that said tyrant wanted the militia to have them?

Are you nuts?

The comma means “therefore” obviously.

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

Now you’re interpreting the constitution…. I interpret it differently.

Yes, because you don't understand the English language very well. It means what it means. If it doesn't, then it becomes utterly useless, and we might as well just point and grunt like cavemen.

The only thing obvious was that the framers were talking about a militia when they were talking about the right to bear arms not being infringed. Why else is it mentioned?

Many things are actually obvious, such as the fact that - in the world of the Framers - "militia" referred to able-bodied citizens. They mentioned it because they considered the ability of the citizens to fulfill that function to be important.

Actually it was a “well regulated militia” Amazing what happens when you actually read the document==you learn some things. Now you guys don’t want any regulations at all…which is fine. It’s unconstitutional but I’m okay with it.

 

[candycorn]

Never said it did. The word militia shows up though.

So what? It is not a condition placed on the right of the people to keep and bear arms

If your position is that the words have no meaning; we can apply that stance to any word in the document. I’ll apply it to “infringed”….

I never said it had no meaning I said it is not a condition placed on the right that belongs to the people.

The founders though the people should be able to not only defend themselves but the people were also expected to take up arms to defend the republic

The militia was (at the time) considered to be the entire male population. And since we still all have to sign up for the draft it can be said to still be true

Women don’t have to sign up. So they are excluded from ownership. Thanks.

Open mouth, insert foot.

The draft is different than the militia and the (entire male population) since there is an age stipulation on the draft as well.

Well if you're a backwards thinking Neanderthal you would be right that women can't own firearms. But you would also have to redefine the word people as it is used in the Constitution if you want to think like a cave man.

The colonial militia took all men from 16 to 50
Not much difference than 18 tears old as it is today

And no one under the age of 18 can buy any firearm

You brought up the Selective Service….I was just informing you of what the details about it are. You apparently are not up to speed on the topic.

 

[Pop23]

No interpretation required.

Only an idiot would read it that, the government would control the very weapons that would be required to fight and over through it should it repress it’s very people.

And, the “therefore” becomes even more apparent when the comma is followed by “to keep”, which indicates “to possess.”

Sorry dude, learn our language.

Again, that is your opinion; your interpretation. Sorry, but that is what you’re doing. They thought it was important enough to include the word “militia”…. Therefore, If you want to keep and bear arms; you should have to join a militia according to the Constitution. That is what the document says. Not me.

I like what we have done with the 2nd Amendment, personally. We just have to limit Mag/Clip sizes to limit the body counts on rampage killings while still respecting the rights of gun owners.

Nope, it’s the opinion of countless scholars and justices.

And if you understood the language.....

You too

You’ve stumbled onto the truth!

Precisely! That is their OPINION. Mine is different. Mine means nothing and yours means nothing. Theirs have the force of law. This is clear evidence that the Constitution is a living document; open to interpretation and opinion.

In 200 years from now, those whose opinions have the force of law may have a different OPINION on the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment, or any other part of the constitution. Just like those who had an opinion when presented with Plessy v. Ferguson ruled differently on “separate but equal” in Brown v.s Board of education later on down the line. I hope not but some court may overturn Brown in the future.

Cuz your kinda slow, let me point to the first three words of the constitution, ya know, those that the Founders thought so highly of, they wrote them in script MUCH LARGER than the rest. "WE THE PEOPLE"

I'll even supply a link to it for ya:

United States Constitution - Wikipedia

They obviously highlighted those because they didn't want any confusion. It did not say, we the Congress, we the courts or we the progressives, it was WE THE PEOPLE. All inclusive isn't it? No interpretation needed, it means all citizens.

Now scroll down to the second amendment and the words the founders used were "the peoples". See the similarity? All inclusive again. The rights of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms (weapons) shall not be infringed.

There really is no doubt that, to insure a free state, the Founders were establishing the method in which "the people" were capable to fight a government hellbent on removing rights from "the people"

You scrolled past the part about the militia.

Anyway you agreed with the point I was making that it is open to interpretation (talk about slow!!!)…it took a couple of days but it finally happened. Applause.

Now, I acknowledged it exists, but it comes before a comma. You do know what a comma is.

because you ignored this, I will repost it:

There really is no doubt that, to insure a free state, the Founders were establishing the method in which "the people" were capable to fight a government hellbent on removing rights from "the people"

See, not an interpretation, but a simple explanation for those that can't explain what the hell they are talking about.

 

[candycorn]

Now you’re interpreting the constitution…. I interpret it differently.

No interpretation required.

Only an idiot would read it that, the government would control the very weapons that would be required to fight and over through it should it repress it’s very people.

And, the “therefore” becomes even more apparent when the comma is followed by “to keep”, which indicates “to possess.”

Sorry dude, learn our language.

Again, that is your opinion; your interpretation. Sorry, but that is what you’re doing. They thought it was important enough to include the word “militia”…. Therefore, If you want to keep and bear arms; you should have to join a militia according to the Constitution. That is what the document says. Not me.

I like what we have done with the 2nd Amendment, personally. We just have to limit Mag/Clip sizes to limit the body counts on rampage killings while still respecting the rights of gun owners.

Nope, it’s the opinion of countless scholars and justices.

And if you understood the language.....

You too

You’ve stumbled onto the truth!

Precisely! That is their OPINION. Mine is different. Mine means nothing and yours means nothing. Theirs have the force of law. This is clear evidence that the Constitution is a living document; open to interpretation and opinion.

In 200 years from now, those whose opinions have the force of law may have a different OPINION on the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment, or any other part of the constitution. Just like those who had an opinion when presented with Plessy v. Ferguson ruled differently on “separate but equal” in Brown v.s Board of education later on down the line. I hope not but some court may overturn Brown in the future.

Cuz your kinda slow, let me point to the first three words of the constitution, ya know, those that the Founders thought so highly of, they wrote them in script MUCH LARGER than the rest. "WE THE PEOPLE"

I'll even supply a link to it for ya:

United States Constitution - Wikipedia

They obviously highlighted those because they didn't want any confusion. It did not say, we the Congress, we the courts or we the progressives, it was WE THE PEOPLE. All inclusive isn't it? No interpretation needed, it means all citizens.

Now scroll down to the second amendment and the words the founders used were "the peoples". See the similarity? All inclusive again. The rights of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms (weapons) shall not be infringed.

There really is no doubt that, to insure a free state, the Founders were establishing the method in which "the people" were capable to fight a government hellbent on removing rights from "the people"

Funny how you apply the “it’s all inclusive” as to meaning “all citizens” (your words) to the 2nd Amendment.

Meanwhile the framers didn’t give women the vote.

Were women not citizens back then?

Your selective interpretations are hilarious.

 

[candycorn]

Again, that is your opinion; your interpretation. Sorry, but that is what you’re doing. They thought it was important enough to include the word “militia”…. Therefore, If you want to keep and bear arms; you should have to join a militia according to the Constitution. That is what the document says. Not me.

I like what we have done with the 2nd Amendment, personally. We just have to limit Mag/Clip sizes to limit the body counts on rampage killings while still respecting the rights of gun owners.

Nope, it’s the opinion of countless scholars and justices.

And if you understood the language.....

You too

You’ve stumbled onto the truth!

Precisely! That is their OPINION. Mine is different. Mine means nothing and yours means nothing. Theirs have the force of law. This is clear evidence that the Constitution is a living document; open to interpretation and opinion.

In 200 years from now, those whose opinions have the force of law may have a different OPINION on the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment, or any other part of the constitution. Just like those who had an opinion when presented with Plessy v. Ferguson ruled differently on “separate but equal” in Brown v.s Board of education later on down the line. I hope not but some court may overturn Brown in the future.

Cuz your kinda slow, let me point to the first three words of the constitution, ya know, those that the Founders thought so highly of, they wrote them in script MUCH LARGER than the rest. "WE THE PEOPLE"

I'll even supply a link to it for ya:

United States Constitution - Wikipedia

They obviously highlighted those because they didn't want any confusion. It did not say, we the Congress, we the courts or we the progressives, it was WE THE PEOPLE. All inclusive isn't it? No interpretation needed, it means all citizens.

Now scroll down to the second amendment and the words the founders used were "the peoples". See the similarity? All inclusive again. The rights of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms (weapons) shall not be infringed.

There really is no doubt that, to insure a free state, the Founders were establishing the method in which "the people" were capable to fight a government hellbent on removing rights from "the people"

You scrolled past the part about the militia.

Anyway you agreed with the point I was making that it is open to interpretation (talk about slow!!!)…it took a couple of days but it finally happened. Applause.

Now, I acknowledged it exists, but it comes before a comma. You do know what a comma is.

because you ignored this, I will repost it:

There really is no doubt that, to insure a free state, the Founders were establishing the method in which "the people" were capable to fight a government hellbent on removing rights from "the people"

See, not an interpretation, but a simple explanation for those that can't explain what the hell they are talking about.

Anyway you agreed with the point I was making that it is open to interpretation (talk about slow!!!)…it took a couple of days but it finally happened. Applause.

 

[koshergrl]

Yes, if a word shows up, that MUST be a directive of some sort.

No, it must be there for some reason though…. When you start ignoring words out of convenience, you open yourself up to others ignoring words as well. That’s all.

Earlier you decried all of this minutia and false equivilances (sp?). I’m with you on that. It’s gotten silly. The 2nd Amendment isn’t going anywhere and you’ll be able to buy as many guns as you want. I tend to think that it’s probably unnecessary but if it makes you “feel” safer…great and more power to you. Stats show that you’re much more likely to suffer because of the decision to arm yourself than not though.

This was All I was stating.

Sure, so the government was so worried about the new country not become a tyranny, like the one that they just fought a war against, that they included an amendment in the founding document..........

That insured the tyrant would control all the “arms” until such time that said tyrant wanted the militia to have them?

Are you nuts?

The comma means “therefore” obviously.

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

Now you’re interpreting the constitution…. I interpret it differently.

Yes, because you don't understand the English language very well. It means what it means. If it doesn't, then it becomes utterly useless, and we might as well just point and grunt like cavemen.

The only thing obvious was that the framers were talking about a militia when they were talking about the right to bear arms not being infringed. Why else is it mentioned?

Nope. They used ENGLISH.

 

[Grumblenuts]

Leftists are so damned focused on "pure" intentions to the exclusion of results, it boggles my mind.

Yes, like the statistical fact that men and woman in general who possess and/or carry guns are far more likely to be shot than those without, period.
Sorry, you were busy denying and projecting. Please, carry on....

 

[koshergrl]

No interpretation required.

Only an idiot would read it that, the government would control the very weapons that would be required to fight and over through it should it repress it’s very people.

And, the “therefore” becomes even more apparent when the comma is followed by “to keep”, which indicates “to possess.”

Sorry dude, learn our language.

Again, that is your opinion; your interpretation. Sorry, but that is what you’re doing. They thought it was important enough to include the word “militia”…. Therefore, If you want to keep and bear arms; you should have to join a militia according to the Constitution. That is what the document says. Not me.

I like what we have done with the 2nd Amendment, personally. We just have to limit Mag/Clip sizes to limit the body counts on rampage killings while still respecting the rights of gun owners.

Nope, it’s the opinion of countless scholars and justices.

And if you understood the language.....

You too

You’ve stumbled onto the truth!

Precisely! That is their OPINION. Mine is different. Mine means nothing and yours means nothing. Theirs have the force of law. This is clear evidence that the Constitution is a living document; open to interpretation and opinion.

In 200 years from now, those whose opinions have the force of law may have a different OPINION on the 2nd Amendment, the 1st Amendment, or any other part of the constitution. Just like those who had an opinion when presented with Plessy v. Ferguson ruled differently on “separate but equal” in Brown v.s Board of education later on down the line. I hope not but some court may overturn Brown in the future.

Cuz your kinda slow, let me point to the first three words of the constitution, ya know, those that the Founders thought so highly of, they wrote them in script MUCH LARGER than the rest. "WE THE PEOPLE"

I'll even supply a link to it for ya:

United States Constitution - Wikipedia

They obviously highlighted those because they didn't want any confusion. It did not say, we the Congress, we the courts or we the progressives, it was WE THE PEOPLE. All inclusive isn't it? No interpretation needed, it means all citizens.

Now scroll down to the second amendment and the words the founders used were "the peoples". See the similarity? All inclusive again. The rights of the people to keep (possess) and bear (carry) arms (weapons) shall not be infringed.

There really is no doubt that, to insure a free state, the Founders were establishing the method in which "the people" were capable to fight a government hellbent on removing rights from "the people"

Funny how you apply the “it’s all inclusive” as to meaning “all citizens” (your words) to the 2nd Amendment.

Meanwhile the framers didn’t give women the vote.

Were women not citizens back then?

Your selective interpretations are hilarious.

Not as hilarious as yours.

What garbage lol. Did your crappy teachers teach you that was an acceptable debate strategy? Spout retardisms until the other side collapses and you can club them?

 

[koshergrl]

Leftists are so damned focused on "pure" intentions to the exclusion of results, it boggles my mind.

Yes, like the statistical fact that men and woman in general who possess and/or carry guns are far more likely to be shot than those without, period.
Sorry, you were busy denying and projecting. Please, carry on....

Only in the hood.

As with everything in the anti-American movement, the stats are skewed because of the HUGE NUMBER OF BLACKS AND GANG MEMBERS IN THE CITIES WHO PACK AND HUNT WITH GUNS. You remove that population, and suddenly the stats show that people who carry are much, much, much safer than anybody else.

Guess what? The people who are killing each other with guns live in areas YOU control, in areas that have strict gun control, heavy policing, intense state involvement in education and child rearing.

You people are done. It's sad we can't just slaughter you as you deserve to be slaughtered, but nobody is listening to you anymore..outside of your own, sad little cliques.

 

[Pop23]

Sure, so the government was so worried about the new country not become a tyranny, like the one that they just fought a war against, that they included an amendment in the founding document..........

That insured the tyrant would control all the “arms” until such time that said tyrant wanted the militia to have them?

Are you nuts?

The comma means “therefore” obviously.

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

Now you’re interpreting the constitution…. I interpret it differently.

Yes, because you don't understand the English language very well. It means what it means. If it doesn't, then it becomes utterly useless, and we might as well just point and grunt like cavemen.

The only thing obvious was that the framers were talking about a militia when they were talking about the right to bear arms not being infringed. Why else is it mentioned?

Many things are actually obvious, such as the fact that - in the world of the Framers - "militia" referred to able-bodied citizens. They mentioned it because they considered the ability of the citizens to fulfill that function to be important.

Actually it was a “well regulated militia” Amazing what happens when you actually read the document==you learn some things. Now you guys don’t want any regulations at all…which is fine. It’s unconstitutional but I’m okay with it.

A militia, regardless, is not possible without arms. If the people do not have "arms" they cannot "form" a militia, regulated or not. Understand what regulated meant in the 18th century, meaning organized to do it's duty, NOT regulated by the government.

A militia may be a "standing militia", or a future "militia". A standing militia is one already called to duty and trained, a future militia is one that has the ability to be called up, with all the material "kept" by those potentially to be called.

If there is no need for a standing militia, one that can be at the ready is the one you have.

Hope this clears this up for you (what the hell am I thinking)

 

[Pop23]

Yes, the framers clearly envisioned " a well regulated" state "militia" - i.e. men signed up, trained, and armed with muskets - no women - to check any standing federal army. Therefore, of no use to the world as it is today. It is simply nonsense begging for repeal and replacement with something currently apt and sensible.

Then get that repeal action going, and no, the National Guard is a Military arm of a STATE GOVERNMENT. A Militia can be in support of that Government controlled body, or prepared to fight against it. The Militia is made up of "the people", not sanctioned or accountable to a repressive government.

 

[candycorn]

Now you’re interpreting the constitution…. I interpret it differently.

Yes, because you don't understand the English language very well. It means what it means. If it doesn't, then it becomes utterly useless, and we might as well just point and grunt like cavemen.

The only thing obvious was that the framers were talking about a militia when they were talking about the right to bear arms not being infringed. Why else is it mentioned?

Many things are actually obvious, such as the fact that - in the world of the Framers - "militia" referred to able-bodied citizens. They mentioned it because they considered the ability of the citizens to fulfill that function to be important.

Actually it was a “well regulated militia” Amazing what happens when you actually read the document==you learn some things. Now you guys don’t want any regulations at all…which is fine. It’s unconstitutional but I’m okay with it.

A militia, regardless, is not possible without arms. If the people do not have "arms" they cannot "form" a militia, regulated or not. Understand what regulated meant in the 18th century, meaning organized to do it's duty, NOT regulated by the government.

A militia may be a "standing militia", or a future "militia". A standing militia is one already called to duty and trained, a future militia is one that has the ability to be called up, with all the material "kept" by those potentially to be called.

If there is no need for a standing militia, one that can be at the ready is the one you have.

Hope this clears this up for you (what the hell am I thinking)

Oh….kay

So now we have this one part of the constitution that applies to “all citizens” where other parts of the document clearly did not…. and not only that, the words “well regulated militia” now refer to a militia that may or may not exist as long as there are no regulations at all.

 

[Pop23]

Leftists are so damned focused on "pure" intentions to the exclusion of results, it boggles my mind.

Yes, like the statistical fact that men and woman in general who possess and/or carry guns are far more likely to be shot than those without, period.
Sorry, you were busy denying and projecting. Please, carry on....

THIS AGAIN?

How else would it be? Good Lord? Since almost all gun deaths are from gang related homicides (most of those against other gang members) and gang member ALL OWN GUNS, the statement is true, but means absolutely nothing. The vast majority of the other gun deaths are by suicide, and if you commit suicide by gun, then yes, a gun is in the home.

Here, let me help ya. A vast majority of Lawn Mower deaths occur when a lawn mower is being used.

See how that works?

Good Lord, and these folks seek power? God help us all

 

[candycorn]

Leftists are so damned focused on "pure" intentions to the exclusion of results, it boggles my mind.

Yes, like the statistical fact that men and woman in general who possess and/or carry guns are far more likely to be shot than those without, period.
Sorry, you were busy denying and projecting. Please, carry on....

Only in the hood.

As with everything in the anti-American movement, the stats are skewed because of the HUGE NUMBER OF BLACKS AND GANG MEMBERS IN THE CITIES WHO PACK AND HUNT WITH GUNS. You remove that population, and suddenly the stats show that people who carry are much, much, much safer than anybody else.

Guess what? The people who are killing each other with guns live in areas YOU control, in areas that have strict gun control, heavy policing, intense state involvement in education and child rearing.

You people are done. It's sad we can't just slaughter you as you deserve to be slaughtered, but nobody is listening to you anymore..outside of your own, sad little cliques.

So the woman in the grocery store and the woman in the car were gang members? Got it.

Didn’t know Idaho was so gang infested with pregnant women no doubt.