At Least 1 Dead in Shooting at Texas Church

See, you cannot defend your positions so you play this game of foisting impossible tasks on me as a means to cowardly and lazily duck out of the debate that you know you cannot win based on the merits of your argument.

How am I, one person, supposed to pass a Constitutional Amendment on JPP?

Seriously, you're a little bitch.

You can't. Deal with it.
 
No right is absolute.




You're the ones who lied in this thread about what the 2A literally says.

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.

There it is. All hanging out pink and naked. The 2nd amendment discusses two related rights. The right of a State to defend itself through the use of militias, and the right of the people (a person is an individual, dumbass) to defend themselves by keeping (owning) bearing arms.
 
It was designed to help treasonous slavers
Nope. The Constitution did not exist during the Revolutionary War.
who had gone in for working for the French
We didn't work for the French during that war. They were simply an ally.
to dodge paying their taxes,
You want to go there? You want to talk about the thefts by Great Britain?
and fixed things so they could still keep slaves
Great Britain had slaves through it's empire too. Kettle logic.
As you also know, the only reason your treasonous ancestors ever paid for guns was to shoot escaped slaves.
No, we paid for our guns so we could shoot British.
 
District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms, unconnected with service in a militia, for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or if the right was intended for state militias.[2]

The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution.

The 2nd amendment specifies no limits of any kind.
 
An old professor of mine used to say "just because you can, doesn't mean you should".
No one is forcing you to buy a gun.
So, the excuse of "personal security" or "safety" or "hunting" or "target shooting" isn't really the reason you have guns. You have them simply because you can. Well, you can have syphilis too...so would you have syphilis just because you can get it?
False equivalence fallacy.
 
Yeah, I'm sure the 200,000 "responsible gun owners" who have their guns stolen every year also thought they were infallible.
Bigotry. Argument from randU fallacy.
Problem is, it doesn't matter how reckless you are with your ownership...you're ultimately not held accountable if your gun walks off and ends up in the hands of criminals.
Correct. The criminal is accountable.
 
Families with guns are less safe. Factor in accidental shootings, family shootings, suicides and if you care about family safety, you will not get a gun.

I have four. No one in my family has ever been shot with any of my guns. My father had two. No one in our family was ever shot with those either. My grandfather had five. No one in his family was ever shot either. I still have on of his guns. He won it in a skeet shooting contest.
 
Into the Night Soil;
200w.webp


LV246 and Moon are socks.


You're a sock. fgm 7.15 and you are a pair. You even talk to your other sock in the forum. You're both out of your freakin skulls.
See you, Jiminy.



Haw, haw.................................haw.
 
This incident shows that trained volunteers on the scene that can react immediately and before the police can arrived can save lives. Its also an argument for arming select teachers who want to train and volunteer to conceal carry at school. Granted not all teachers want or should conceal carry but some do. If I were a student I'd feel better about trained teacher concealed carrying over waiting for a police response while a shooter is free to kill because no one is shooting at him.

Two people died before the gunman was brought down.
 
Those four reasons are enough for me having guns.

But you just said you don't use half of your guns.

So those aren't the reasons you have those guns...you said so yourself!


I need no more than having the right to own the rest (which are mostly for investment).

You know, baseball cards are an investment too, so are Star Wars toys, a second home, Beanie babies, putting money into the stock market...all are "investments" you can make that don't run the risk of ending up in the hands of someone who will use them for harm.
 
Back
Top