100% FREE ONLINE DATING
sponsored links
Previous
| Topic: USA - Gun Control | |
|---|---|
|
|
|
One correspondent, who is into psychology, notes that in his
experience people who are hoplophobes are nearly always nutty in other ways, too. Hoplophobia [fear of guns], of course, is not simply an attitude but rather an aberration in which the sufferer clings to an idea which he himself knows to be unsound, such as the idea that inanimate instruments have a will of their own or that lawbreakers abide by the law. Jeff Cooper (1920-2006) Jeff Cooper's Commentaries Volume Nine, No 7. 35/73 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
They will never outlaw all of your guns at once. But every
'reasonable' control they can impose without your resistance gives them one more bit of leverage to make gun ownership for you and your children and your grandchildren as difficult as possible. David Kopel |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'control',, such an unpatriotic and unamerican concept  balance is lovely,, NRA to stand up for right to OWN weapons and gun control lobbyist to interject common sense details about types of weapons and common sense 'regulations' as in 'well regulated' still abusing that Well Regulated I see! Maybe it is time you go and look it up in the context of the 18th-Century when it was written!  BTW,no Government has the "Right" to infringe on the Rights of the Citizen,that's why they are called Rights instead of Privileges! Might Google for the difference,instead of constantly disseminate that dis-Information of yours! most of those 'rights' have an unless the 'right' to free speech (unless it imposes upon someones reputation or endangers others) the 'right' to marry, albeit a newly interpreted right that isnt actually mentioned constitutionally,,lol ,,unless you are not of age or mental capacity to consent or you are married rights are not absolute in a society where peoples actions impact other people , the UNLESS is unstated but present in just about any of those 'rights',, I have a right to breathe, well thats got no unless, EVERYONE does it and NOONE can stop you from doing it under any circumstance UNLESS,,lol, someone has authority to stop your life to save another or to dispense justice for a crime 'well regulated',,,,,, has several different interpretations in the world of academia but I do believe, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed would suffice if it was meant as an absolute, that comma, and that other phrase, ,must be meant to have some bearing,,, kind of like how people quote 'judge not lest ye be judged' to mean judgments are absolutely forbidden yet that passage doesnt say 'judge not', PERIOD, end of sentence it states 'judge not lest' (comma, conditional, ) ye be judged well, every christian knows there will be a judgment day, so it makes no sense to assume this was meant as an absolute to forbid judgment for the sake of avoiding judgment,, this instead is replying to being JUST and CONSISTENT in judgement , to judge only in the manner you are going to be judged,,,, a well regulated militia, was before our well regulated department of defense,, and that right was to arm those individuals,,, we already spend a big chunk of the budget to fulfill that constitutional right,,lol and we ensure those folks are trained and reasonably sane before we arm them as well,,,, they have to actually fight our wars,,,, right to free speech... does that include a mans right to ask about obarry being a muslim to Donald Trump? Hillary doesn't think he has that right... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
We are fast approaching the stage of the ultimate inversion:
the stage where the government is free to do anything it pleases, while the citizens may act only by permission; which is the stage of the darkest periods of human history, the stage of rule by brute force. Ayn Rand (1905-1982) The Nature of Government |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gun control is a band-aid, feeling good approach to the
nation's crime problem. It is easier for politicians to ban something than it is to condemn a murderer to death or a robber to life in prison. In essence, 'gun control' is the coward's way out. Gabriel Suarez |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 Liar-In-Chief! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
RebelArcher
on
Fri 09/18/15 04:14 PM
|
|
Wrong again. You aren't pay attention to what actually happens, you are buying into the propaganda from both sides. Wrong about what? That its hypocritical for someone protected by firearms to tell me that I cant own said firearms? Um, no Im not. The rest of that bs you posted is just that....bs.Now go over analyze some more. You, or anybody else cant give one good reason why a law abiding American citizen cant own whatever firearm they want....other than you wanna push your fear and beliefs on everyone else. Stay the frick outta my personal decision to own firearms and Ill stay out of your decision to not own any. |
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
TMommy
on
Fri 09/18/15 04:22 PM
|
|
Gun Control: Myths and Realities
By David Lampo May 13, 2000 The number of well-publicized public shootings during the past few years, especially the tragedy at Columbine High School, has re-energized the gun control movement. As a show of strength, a coalition of gun control groups has organized a “Million Mom March” to be held in Washington, D.C. on Mother’s Day, an event designed to stir up emotions rather than promote rational thought. And when one looks at the facts about gun control, it’s easy to see why the anti-gun lobby relies on emotion rather than logic to make its case. Think you know the facts about gun control? If your only source of information is the mainstream media, what you think you know may not be correct. Take the quiz below and test your knowledge. 1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents. False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn’t know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes “children” up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence. 2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals. False. Contrary to President Clinton’s claims, there is no “gun show loophole.” All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks. 3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws. False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal. 4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don’t. True. The 31 states that have “shall issue” laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns. 5. Waiting periods lower crime rates. False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that “waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides.” 6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works. False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel “have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.” A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime. The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let’s hope more people are catching on. David Lampo is the publications director at the Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'control',, such an unpatriotic and unamerican concept balance is lovely,, NRA to stand up for right to OWN weapons and gun control lobbyist to interject common sense details about types of weapons and common sense 'regulations' as in 'well regulated' still abusing that Well Regulated I see! Maybe it is time you go and look it up in the context of the 18th-Century when it was written! BTW,no Government has the "Right" to infringe on the Rights of the Citizen,that's why they are called Rights instead of Privileges! Might Google for the difference,instead of constantly disseminate that dis-Information of yours! most of those 'rights' have an unless the 'right' to free speech (unless it imposes upon someones reputation or endangers others) the 'right' to marry, albeit a newly interpreted right that isnt actually mentioned constitutionally,,lol ,,unless you are not of age or mental capacity to consent or you are married rights are not absolute in a society where peoples actions impact other people , the UNLESS is unstated but present in just about any of those 'rights',, I have a right to breathe, well thats got no unless, EVERYONE does it and NOONE can stop you from doing it under any circumstance UNLESS,,lol, someone has authority to stop your life to save another or to dispense justice for a crime 'well regulated',,,,,, has several different interpretations in the world of academia but I do believe, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed would suffice if it was meant as an absolute, that comma, and that other phrase, ,must be meant to have some bearing,,, kind of like how people quote 'judge not lest ye be judged' to mean judgments are absolutely forbidden yet that passage doesnt say 'judge not', PERIOD, end of sentence it states 'judge not lest' (comma, conditional, ) ye be judged well, every christian knows there will be a judgment day, so it makes no sense to assume this was meant as an absolute to forbid judgment for the sake of avoiding judgment,, this instead is replying to being JUST and CONSISTENT in judgement , to judge only in the manner you are going to be judged,,,, a well regulated militia, was before our well regulated department of defense,, and that right was to arm those individuals,,, we already spend a big chunk of the budget to fulfill that constitutional right,,lol and we ensure those folks are trained and reasonably sane before we arm them as well,,,, they have to actually fight our wars,,,, right to free speech... does that include a mans right to ask about obarry being a muslim to Donald Trump? Hillary doesn't think he has that right... more like some don't think Hilary has a right to have an opinion about such a question,,lol |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
lol
brat one: I want the orange twinkies brat two: The orange twinkies were recalled because they were causing illness and unsafe for general consumption brat one: I still want the orange twinkies brat two: well you have every meat, vegetable, fruit, dairy product and every OTHER snack available brat one: why are you trying to control and keep me from twinkies brat two: Im not,, you can still have ALL the other twinkies available brat one: But I wanted the ORANGE ones TOO and you should be able to tell me I cant lol ,.,,,,end of spoof regarding ego and entitlement mentality,,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gun Control: Myths and Realities By David Lampo May 13, 2000 The number of well-publicized public shootings during the past few years, especially the tragedy at Columbine High School, has re-energized the gun control movement. As a show of strength, a coalition of gun control groups has organized a “Million Mom March” to be held in Washington, D.C. on Mother’s Day, an event designed to stir up emotions rather than promote rational thought. And when one looks at the facts about gun control, it’s easy to see why the anti-gun lobby relies on emotion rather than logic to make its case. Think you know the facts about gun control? If your only source of information is the mainstream media, what you think you know may not be correct. Take the quiz below and test your knowledge. 1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents. False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn’t know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes “children” up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence. 2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals. False. Contrary to President Clinton’s claims, there is no “gun show loophole.” All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks. 3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws. False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal. 4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don’t. True. The 31 states that have “shall issue” laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns. 5. Waiting periods lower crime rates. False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that “waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides.” 6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works. False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel “have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.” A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime. The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let’s hope more people are catching on. David Lampo is the publications director at the Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities Lampo got it wrong! It is extremely difficult to get a Carry-Permit in Switzerland! |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gun Control: Myths and Realities By David Lampo May 13, 2000 The number of well-publicized public shootings during the past few years, especially the tragedy at Columbine High School, has re-energized the gun control movement. As a show of strength, a coalition of gun control groups has organized a “Million Mom March” to be held in Washington, D.C. on Mother’s Day, an event designed to stir up emotions rather than promote rational thought. And when one looks at the facts about gun control, it’s easy to see why the anti-gun lobby relies on emotion rather than logic to make its case. Think you know the facts about gun control? If your only source of information is the mainstream media, what you think you know may not be correct. Take the quiz below and test your knowledge. 1. Thousands of children die annually in gun accidents. False. Gun accidents involving children are actually at record lows, although you wouldn’t know it from listening to the mainstream media. In 1997, the last year for which data are available, only 142 children under 15 years of age died in gun accidents, and the total number of gun-related deaths for this age group was 642. More children die each year in accidents involving bikes, space heaters or drownings. The often repeated claim that 12 children per day die from gun violence includes “children” up to 20 years of age, the great majority of whom are young adult males who die in gang-related violence. 2. Gun shows are responsible for a large number of firearms falling into the hands of criminals. False. Contrary to President Clinton’s claims, there is no “gun show loophole.” All commercial arms dealers at gun shows must run background checks, and the only people exempt from them are the small number of non-commercial sellers. According to the U.S. Department of Justice, at most 2 percent of guns used by criminals are purchased at gun shows, and most of those were purchased legally by people who passed background checks. 3. The tragedy at Columbine High School a year ago illustrates the deficiencies of current gun control laws. False. Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold violated close to 20 firearms laws in amassing their cache of weapons (not to mention the law against murder), so it seems rather dubious to argue that additional laws might have prevented this tragedy. The two shotguns and rifle used by Harris and Klebold were purchased by a girlfriend who would have passed a background check, and the TEC-9 handgun used by them was already illegal. 4. States that allow registered citizens to carry concealed weapons have lower crime rates than those that don’t. True. The 31 states that have “shall issue” laws allowing private citizens to carry concealed weapons have, on average, a 24 percent lower violent crime rate, a 19 percent lower murder rate and a 39 percent lower robbery rate than states that forbid concealed weapons. In fact, the nine states with the lowest violent crime rates are all right-to-carry states. Remarkably, guns are used for self-defense more than 2 million times a year, three to five times the estimated number of violent crimes committed with guns. 5. Waiting periods lower crime rates. False. Numerous studies have been conducted on the effects of waiting periods, both before and after the federal Brady bill was passed in 1993. Those studies consistently show that there is no correlation between waiting periods and murder or robbery rates. Florida State University professor Gary Kleck analyzed data from every U.S. city with a population over 100,000 and found that waiting periods had no statistically significant effect. Even University of Maryland anti-gun researcher David McDowell found that “waiting periods have no influence on either gun homicides or gun suicides.” 6. Lower murder rates in foreign countries prove that gun control works. False. This is one of the favorite arguments of gun control proponents, and yet the facts show that there is simply no correlation between gun control laws and murder or suicide rates across a wide spectrum of nations and cultures. In Israel and Switzerland, for example, a license to possess guns is available on demand to every law-abiding adult, and guns are easily obtainable in both nations. Both countries also allow widespread carrying of concealed firearms, and yet, admits Dr. Arthur Kellerman, one of the foremost medical advocates of gun control, Switzerland and Israel “have rates of homicide that are low despite rates of home firearm ownership that are at least as high as those in the United States.” A comparison of crime rates within Europe reveals no correlation between access to guns and crime. The basic premise of the gun control movement, that easy access to guns causes higher crime, is contradicted by the facts, by history and by reason. Let’s hope more people are catching on. David Lampo is the publications director at the Cato Institute. http://www.cato.org/publications/commentary/gun-control-myths-realities Lampo got it wrong! It is extremely difficult to get a Carry-Permit in Switzerland! But no problem owning an assault rifle. From Wiki: "Gun politics in Switzerland are unique in Europe. The vast majority of men between the ages of 20 and 30 are conscripted into the militia and undergo military training, including weapons training. The personal weapons of the militia are kept at home as part of the military obligations. However, it is generally not permitted to keep army-issued ammunition, but compatible ammunition purchased for privately owned guns is permitted. At the end of military service period the previously used gun can be converted to a privately owned gun after a weapon acquisition permit has been granted (fully automatic weapons will be rebuilt into semi-automatic ones). Switzerland thus has one of the highest gun ownership rates in the world.[1] In recent times a minority of political opposition has expressed a desire for tighter gun regulations.[2] A referendum in February 2011 rejected stricter gun control.[3][4] 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
gun control?? Hillary, McCain have no problems giving people we don't know high tech weapons. but USA citizens no no no! feds spent over $20 billion to black water private military contractors allowed any weapon. means federal government has its own private army.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Bundy ranch in Utah excellent example of armed citizens standing up to the federal government. the sheriff had no choice tell feds to leave the county, come back the feds would be arrested for tresspass. when it got to Congress the federal agency looked like idiots.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'control',, such an unpatriotic and unamerican concept balance is lovely,, NRA to stand up for right to OWN weapons and gun control lobbyist to interject common sense details about types of weapons and common sense 'regulations' as in 'well regulated' still abusing that Well Regulated I see! Maybe it is time you go and look it up in the context of the 18th-Century when it was written! BTW,no Government has the "Right" to infringe on the Rights of the Citizen,that's why they are called Rights instead of Privileges! Might Google for the difference,instead of constantly disseminate that dis-Information of yours! most of those 'rights' have an unless the 'right' to free speech (unless it imposes upon someones reputation or endangers others) the 'right' to marry, albeit a newly interpreted right that isnt actually mentioned constitutionally,,lol ,,unless you are not of age or mental capacity to consent or you are married rights are not absolute in a society where peoples actions impact other people , the UNLESS is unstated but present in just about any of those 'rights',, I have a right to breathe, well thats got no unless, EVERYONE does it and NOONE can stop you from doing it under any circumstance UNLESS,,lol, someone has authority to stop your life to save another or to dispense justice for a crime 'well regulated',,,,,, has several different interpretations in the world of academia but I do believe, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed would suffice if it was meant as an absolute, that comma, and that other phrase, ,must be meant to have some bearing,,, kind of like how people quote 'judge not lest ye be judged' to mean judgments are absolutely forbidden yet that passage doesnt say 'judge not', PERIOD, end of sentence it states 'judge not lest' (comma, conditional, ) ye be judged well, every christian knows there will be a judgment day, so it makes no sense to assume this was meant as an absolute to forbid judgment for the sake of avoiding judgment,, this instead is replying to being JUST and CONSISTENT in judgement , to judge only in the manner you are going to be judged,,,, a well regulated militia, was before our well regulated department of defense,, and that right was to arm those individuals,,, we already spend a big chunk of the budget to fulfill that constitutional right,,lol and we ensure those folks are trained and reasonably sane before we arm them as well,,,, they have to actually fight our wars,,,, right to free speech... does that include a mans right to ask about obarry being a muslim to Donald Trump? Hillary doesn't think he has that right... more like some don't think Hilary has a right to have an opinion about such a question,,lol why wouldn't she? she's the one who made the stink over it... if she was for free speech rights, she would understand people can think whatever they want... |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'control',, such an unpatriotic and unamerican concept balance is lovely,, NRA to stand up for right to OWN weapons and gun control lobbyist to interject common sense details about types of weapons and common sense 'regulations' as in 'well regulated' still abusing that Well Regulated I see! Maybe it is time you go and look it up in the context of the 18th-Century when it was written! BTW,no Government has the "Right" to infringe on the Rights of the Citizen,that's why they are called Rights instead of Privileges! Might Google for the difference,instead of constantly disseminate that dis-Information of yours! most of those 'rights' have an unless the 'right' to free speech (unless it imposes upon someones reputation or endangers others) the 'right' to marry, albeit a newly interpreted right that isnt actually mentioned constitutionally,,lol ,,unless you are not of age or mental capacity to consent or you are married rights are not absolute in a society where peoples actions impact other people , the UNLESS is unstated but present in just about any of those 'rights',, I have a right to breathe, well thats got no unless, EVERYONE does it and NOONE can stop you from doing it under any circumstance UNLESS,,lol, someone has authority to stop your life to save another or to dispense justice for a crime 'well regulated',,,,,, has several different interpretations in the world of academia but I do believe, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed would suffice if it was meant as an absolute, that comma, and that other phrase, ,must be meant to have some bearing,,, kind of like how people quote 'judge not lest ye be judged' to mean judgments are absolutely forbidden yet that passage doesnt say 'judge not', PERIOD, end of sentence it states 'judge not lest' (comma, conditional, ) ye be judged well, every christian knows there will be a judgment day, so it makes no sense to assume this was meant as an absolute to forbid judgment for the sake of avoiding judgment,, this instead is replying to being JUST and CONSISTENT in judgement , to judge only in the manner you are going to be judged,,,, a well regulated militia, was before our well regulated department of defense,, and that right was to arm those individuals,,, we already spend a big chunk of the budget to fulfill that constitutional right,,lol and we ensure those folks are trained and reasonably sane before we arm them as well,,,, they have to actually fight our wars,,,, right to free speech... does that include a mans right to ask about obarry being a muslim to Donald Trump? Hillary doesn't think he has that right... more like some don't think Hilary has a right to have an opinion about such a question,,lol why wouldn't she? she's the one who made the stink over it... if she was for free speech rights, she would understand people can think whatever they want... so lets close the forum and just let people 'think' whatever they want,, without making a 'stink' over it,,, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
a well regulated militia, was before our well Too bad, for you, that you aren't the be all, end all for interpreting the Constitution. regulated department of defense,, and that right was to arm those individuals,,, In 2008, in The District of Columbia vs Heller, the Supreme Court ruled: "" 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."" http://www.lawnix.com/cases/dc-heller.html But I'm sure you think you know more than them so keep on keeping on with your "well regulated" definition nonsense. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
Edited by
msharmony
on
Sat 09/19/15 10:42 AM
|
|
'you aren't the be all, end all for interpreting the Constitution'
THIS^ is true of everyone in the forum YET, here we are sharing our views anyway,,,,, for the record, I have never disputed the right to own 'a firearm' HERE IN AMERICA, we already own more per capita than any other industrialized country,,,, that has little to do with regulating firearms themselves |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
'you aren't the be all, end all for interpreting Um...I provided the entity that IS the be all, end all fpr interpreting the Constitution. And their ruling squashed your ,firearms are for militia inference. Wanna see what you said again? the Constitution' THIS^ is true of everyone in the forum "" a well regulated militia, was before our well regulated department of defense,, and that right was to arm those individuals,,,"" Just so YOU may FINALLY get it, here's the ruling again... "" The Second Amendment protects an INDIVIDUAL right to possess a firearm UNCONNECTED WITH SERVICE IN THE MILITIA, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self- defense within the home"" The correct response from you, after being shown the evidence, shoulda been....."Oh well, guess I was wrong"....but we all know that ain't gonna happen YET, here we are sharing our views anyway,,,,, You and anyone can share whatever views you want. Still doesn't exempt you from being called on your bs. for the record, I have never disputed the right Good for you, you wanna prize or something? to own 'a firearm' HERE IN AMERICA, we already own more per So? capita than any other industrialized country,,,, that has little to do with regulating firearms Again, you, or nobody else can come up with a good reason why a law abiding U.S. citizen shouldnt be able to own the types of firearms the anti gun nuts want to ban...i.e., 'assault rifles' and high capacity magazines...Once again, you already can choose not to own these weapons...quit fricking with my choice TO own them.
themselves |
|
|
|
|
