Jihad in America

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by RedLeg505

Substandard conditions? Ohh.. you mean like we need more limits on the first Amendment so that ONLY those the government agrees with can speak?

Because your right to speak your mind doesn't outweigh the government's "right' to control you, huh Woomby-tunes?

As for what's the "answer" to this problem? How about... wait for it.. ENFORCING THE EXISTING LAWS ON GUN OWNERSHIP? Wow.. amazing concept huh?

No, like education, dumbass. You're a living example of us falling short as a country on that fucking subject. Enforcing the laws on the books is a copout.

An amazing concept would be to do something that will actually work.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

So what is your answer? Are you content to continue putting up with this bullshit? It's funny what you idiots will and won't accept about your country. You go on about us being the greatest, but you accept substandard conditions in many areas and resist any change that could possibly help make things better. Basically, you're just fucking idiots. I'm not ok with people dying in these fucking mass murders hundreds of times a year. I don't think your right to own a gun outweighs someone else's right to fucking be alive.

The second amendment doesn't even guarantee the private citizen a right to keep and bear arms unless they are part of a 'well-regulated militia'.

First of all you know nothing about gun laws in this country, there's quite a few that address all areas where gun violence is concerned. Secondly you obviously don't understand what the second amendment implies. The right to keep and bare arms means much more than just being part of a well regulated militia but rather the ability to form a well trained and regulated militia to defend ourselves against tyranny whether it be foreign or domestic and that means all American citizens.

Jim

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

First, it sounds like you're on board with a ban and confiscation. Good to know where the idiots stand. You're also a kind of liar as no one has said that having firearm freedom is approving of mass killings. You're the only person trying to make that case. You also lie when you say it is "I don't think your right to own a gun outweighs someone else's right to fucking be alive." because you purposely misstate the case. My right to own a gun is because I want the chance to survive an armed encounter with a dangerous criminal which happens far more often than a mass shooting and before you open your maggot filled mouth, just take a look at Chicago on any given weekend. Lots of encounters with dangerous criminals and the citizen usually comes off second best. That's the way the left likes it. You see, the left does not see us an individuals with a right to self preservation. The left sees us as groups to be used to amass more power. The loss of one, two, or eleven is not important to the influence of the group. We on the right do believe in the importance of the individual and each individual has, what some would call, a God given right to self defense.

You goddamn moron. Chicago is always the fallback for you shitstains. Why don't you go look at the actual crime rates for most of the cities neighborhoods.

Your delusion is showing. What are the chances you will have an encounter with an armed criminal? Very low, dumbass.

As for what the 'left' wants, you've got no clue, turd cutter. You're not even making sense. If the 'left' wants to keep minorities as a voting block, why would they want them dying at a clip much higher than whites? You've been hoisted by your own retard

You have a right to self-defense. Nowhere does it say you need a gun for that, you pussy. You're a delusional shithead who thinks the next encounter with an armed assailant is just around the corner. The facts and data don't bear that out. You're crazy.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

First of all you know nothing about gun laws in this country, there's quite a few that address all areas where gun violence is concerned. Secondly you obviously don't understand what the second amendment implies. The right to keep and bare arms means much more than just being part of a well regulated militia but rather the ability to form a well trained and regulated militia to defend ourselves against tyranny whether it be foreign or domestic and that means all American citizens.

Jim

The second amendment doesn't say any of that. It's not about what it 'implies', dumbass. It's about what it actually SAYS. Go read it. Keep and bear arms were used as military terms during the 1700s. That, along with the well-regulated militia means the guns were for that purpose, not the private citizen.

You and your ilk have tried to twist it to mean something else, but it doesn't. I know gun laws in this country aren't working. I know we have one of these shootings all the fucking time. I know if it you were kin, you wouldn't be on here calling them false flags and all that other bullshit you spew.

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by JD Barleycorn

You did say something stupid. You can't deny that. (you will anyway) Drag out Hitler....of course. Hitler was elected to office...democratically in accordance with the laws of the land. That is why he is so fascinating to historians and political scientist because that was unlike any other despot or dictator in modern history. Yes, Hitler was elected democratically and he instituted gun controls in Germany. He also relied on the registration bureaus of France, Belgium, and Poland to go around and confiscate firearms.

FYI, the United States is not a democracy. It is a representative republic. When using general terms it is okay to say it is a democracy but when you really talking politics then you should get it right.

I know what form of government we employ, shitstain. In fact, I think I had to tell you that once upon a time. Better get that Garand, I think I see a 777

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

The second amendment doesn't say any of that. It's not about what it 'implies', dumbass. It's about what it actually SAYS. Go read it. Keep and bear arms were used as military terms during the 1700s. That, along with the well-regulated militia means the guns were for that purpose, not the private citizen.

You and your ilk have tried to twist it to mean something else, but it doesn't. I know gun laws in this country aren't working. I know we have one of these shootings all the fucking time. I know if it you were kin, you wouldn't be on here calling them false flags and all that other bullshit you spew.

Yes it does, the Second Amendment clearly states the right of the people, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment does not address the Military in any way shape or form. It's specifically enacted for the citizens of America. The Military is Government they can become tyrannical as well, and we may have to defend ourselves against them. Not a pleasant thought but dam possible. It has happened in other countries and they were like sitting ducks cause they were unarmed. You obviously don't know what a Militia is. A Militia is a military force comprised from the CIVILIAN population to supplement a regular army. Who arms the Military? It's the government who arms them. Who arms a Militia? They arm themselves. You don't know the law and you don't know as much about the constitution as you think you do. If anything you're the one trying to define the second amendment as something it isn't.

Jim

[WombRaider]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Yes it does, the Second Amendment clearly states the right of the people, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. The Second Amendment does not address the Military in any way shape or form. It's specifically enacted for the citizens of America. The Military is Government they can become tyrannical as well, and we may have to defend ourselves against them. Not a pleasant thought but dam possible. It has happened in other countries and they were like sitting ducks cause they were unarmed. You obviously don't know what a Militia is. A Militia is a military force comprised from the CIVILIAN population to supplement a regular army. Who arms the Military? It's the government who arms them. Who arms a Militia? They arm themselves. You don't know the law and you don't know as much about the constitution as you think you do. If anything you're the one trying to define the second amendment as something it isn't.

Jim

"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."

Doesn't say anything about private citizens having guns. It says a well-regulated militia can.

Check out US vs Cruikshank and US vs Miller and get back to me. This interpretation you desire is a 20th century interpretation.

It has been twisted to the point where you think it means everyone has the right to a gun. When was the last time the government rose up and tried to take you over? Your fear is irrational. Because something COULD happen, you're willing to sacrifice all those people's lives on the altar of your stupidity and delusion. Enough is enough.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

"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."

Doesn't say anything about private citizens having guns. It says a well-regulated militia can.

Check out US vs Cruikshank and US vs Miller and get back to me. This interpretation you desire is a 20th century interpretation.

It has been twisted to the point where you think it means everyone has the right to a gun. When was the last time the government rose up and tried to take you over? Your fear is irrational. Because something COULD happen, you're willing to sacrifice all those people's lives on the altar of your stupidity and delusion. Enough is enough.

If that was the case we would have already had massive gun confiscation. A private citizen in possession of a firearm would be a criminal offense. A well regulated militia refers to the citizenry. We wouldn't need a bunch of shootings and liberal cry babies bitching about back ground checks to curb gun violence. The constitution wouldn't protect the ownership of firearms by private citizens and the President could use his Executive powers to have all citizens to relinquish their fire arms. So why hasn't that been the case? Now get back to me on that.

Jim

[MrThom]

No, it says "The Right of the People to KEEP AND BEAR ARMS shall not be infringed"

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

"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."

Doesn't say anything about private citizens having guns. It says a well-regulated militia can.

Check out US vs Cruikshank and US vs Miller and get back to me. This interpretation you desire is a 20th century interpretation.

It has been twisted to the point where you think it means everyone has the right to a gun. When was the last time the government rose up and tried to take you over? Your fear is irrational. Because something COULD happen, you're willing to sacrifice all those people's lives on the altar of your stupidity and delusion. Enough is enough.

Go back to your cock-sucking glory hole, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home (Heller vs DC, 2008).

[IIFFOFRDB]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

"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."

Doesn't say anything about private citizens having guns. It says a well-regulated militia can.

Check out US vs Cruikshank and US vs Miller and get back to me. This interpretation you desire is a 20th century interpretation.

It has been twisted to the point where you think it means everyone has the right to a gun. When was the last time the government rose up and tried to take you over? Your fear is irrational. Because something COULD happen, you're willing to sacrifice all those people's lives on the altar of your stupidity and delusion. Enough is enough.

All I need is some single strand shark leader and a ...

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Go back to your cock-sucking glory hole, you "#Grubered", freelance faggot, Odumbo Minion from Arkansas.

+ 1 !!!!!

[RedLeg505]

Originally Posted by WombRaider

Enforcing the laws on the books is a copout.

So, if "enforcing the law" is a cop out, we don't need to enforce any laws??? Or do we only enforce the ones YOU specifically like?? So you can stop worrying about the cops busting you at the truck stop gloryhole??

As for your Supreme Court citations, you know they were all issued BEFORE they issued the Heller vs DC ruling that the Second Amendment is an "Individual self defense right" that has nothing to do with "militias". But of course you know that, don't you Woomby-tunes? ?

[Rey Lengua]

Originally Posted by RedLeg505

So, if "enforcing the law" is a cop out, we don't need to enforce any laws??? Or do we only enforce the ones YOU specifically like?? So you can stop worrying about the cops busting you at the truck stop gloryhole??

As for your Supreme Court citations, you know they were all issued BEFORE they issued the Heller vs DC ruling that the Second Amendment is an "Individual self defense right" that has nothing to do with "militias". But of course you know that, don't you Woomby-tunes? ?

Way to give it to the Gloryhole Guru of Arkansas ! :clappi ng:

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by RedLeg505

So, if "enforcing the law" is a cop out, we don't need to enforce any laws??? Or do we only enforce the ones YOU specifically like?? So you can stop worrying about the cops busting you at the truck stop gloryhole??

As for your Supreme Court citations, you know they were all issued BEFORE they issued the Heller vs DC ruling that the Second Amendment is an "Individual self defense right" that has nothing to do with "militias". But of course you know that, don't you Woomby-tunes? ?

+1

And, according to the Founding Fathers, it always was an individual right:

"I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

"That the said Constitution shall never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the press or the rights of conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms ... " — Samuel Adams, Debates and Proceedings in the Convention of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, at 86-87 (Pierce & Hale, eds., Boston, 1850)