G
Guns Guns Guns
Guest
Answer my question.
I did. I whispered my reply to God. Didn't He pass on the message? I thought maybe you'd get a text, or something.
Answer my question.
Asked and answered, moron. Learn to fucking read.
Better yet, go find some nice, safe, gun-free tyranny and leave freedom to those who actually understand it.
Several of us HAVE explained it, repeatedly. Just because you are too fucking stupid to comprehend the written word beyond "See Spot run." does not mean the explanations have not been presented, most of them quite clearly. Human rights are inherent to the human condition. Therefore the Constitution does not grant our freedoms, since we already possess them. What the Constitution does is protect them from the government created by the Constitution by limiting the powers of government. Why is it you have such difficulty understanding such a basic concept?If you understand it, how come you can't explain it?
Besides, how would a gun-free tyranny be safe?
Several of us HAVE explained it, repeatedly. Just because you are too fucking stupid to comprehend the written word beyond "See Spot run." does not mean the explanations have not been presented, most of them quite clearly. Human rights are inherent to the human condition. Therefore the Constitution does not grant our freedoms, since we already possess them. What the Constitution does is protect them from the government created by the Constitution by limiting the powers of government. Why is it you have such difficulty understanding such a basic concept? And, as far as I am concerned, a gun free tyranny would not be safe. However, since I am not the one creating thread after thread after thread challenging the right to keep and bear arms, with post after post after post with news articles about the dangers of scary firearms, my feeling on the safety of a gun-free state would not match yours. The natural conclusion from your obsession of the topic is you are panty-wetting afraid of firearms and therefore would feel safer in a gun-free society. (which can only be found in tyrannies.)
I did. I whispered my reply to God. Didn't He pass on the message? I thought maybe you'd get a text, or something.
.Prove it, coward.![]()
LOL Riiight. How about this very thread as a primary example. Then we can move on to all your multiple threads on shootings, and the wording of the 2nd Amendment, etc. etc. etc. Clue: some people can think for themselves, and from the tone of your threads and posts, it is readily apparent to any thinking person that you detest the right to keep and bear arms. If you want to now claim such is NOT your position on the issue, then you are a liar.Please, link up to any post I've made that challenges the right to keep and bear arms. If you can't, you can apologize like a man.
And again, we see you trying to obfuscate the intent of your postings. Pathetic twit that you are, you can't even be honest about why you choose to create multiple threads on firearms. It must really suck being you.It's interesting that you consider factual news articles detailing the daily use of firearms by armed citizens "scary". Aren't you proud of the proven efficacy of the American marksman?
Zero. Anyone with a brain can see the purpose of your postings. If you want to hide behind the sorry assed chicken shit fact that you haven't the honesty to actually make a definitive statement of your purpose for posting all these threads on firearms ownership and use, go ahead. Your type of liberal uses such dishonest hubris as a matter of course. All your rhetorical maneuverings do is reveal you as the pathetic piece of bovine drool you are.How many flaws are there in your assumptions?
No, most "gun -lovers" (to use your pathetic stereotyping liberal description) cite the 2nd Amendment as the specific limitation placed on (and ignored by) the government(s) with respect to firearms rights and federal, state, and local firearms limiting laws which are, by definition, unconstitutional. Although the Constitution being the supreme law of the land is the only point you got right, your additional diarrheal discharge of rhetoric shows you still do not understand exactly what that means.Most gunlovers cite the second amendment as the defining law regarding firearms, which makes sense because the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, as far as I know.
Typical liberal off point bullshit.Maybe Sarah Palin has given some of you a new history lesson.
LOL Again, just because the concepts of freedom and what political and social principles comprise a Constitutional Republic are beyond your ability to comprehend does not mean my position has not been made quite clear. Your lack of ability to understand the basic concept of the purpose and scope of the Constitution IS your problem. Thank GOD you aren't anyone with political power.Your inability to justify your position isn't my problem.
No you didn't, coward.
Prove it, coward.![]()
why are you feeding the troll? ice dancer does not approve of this....
Getting closer, though it is the powers of government that are derived through the consent of the governed, not our rights. Our rights are inherent to us as human beings. We create governments to SECURE (not grant, allow, define or otherwise derived through government) our rights, so that no person or group of persons, nor foreign government, nor domestic government, can interfere with our rights.
And the need for enumerating the right to keep and bear arms was derived from that same section, in which it is stated:
"... whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish such government ..." and under the later clause: "But when a long chain of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute despotism, it is their Right, it is their duty, to throw off such government...."
The above, coupled with the knowledge that no government is ever going to voluntarily relinquish the unjust powers it has usurped over the people, and that the act of throwing off a despotic government will, almost invariably, come only through force of arms, is the basis for specifying the right to keep and bear arms in our Bill of Rights, so that we will always retain the ultimate means - use of force - to secure our rights.
So you think the Declaration of Independence is the supreme law of the USA, rather than the Constitution?
Maybe Sarah Palin has given some of you a new history lesson.
You're an eyediot.
Who here reflects on Palin?
Yet you bring that up as if others do.
Please, link up to any post I've made that challenges the right to keep and bear arms. If you can't, you can apologize like a man.
Don't get your hopes up. Seems to me the entire premise of today's liberal philosophy is built on the idea that perception is reality, and if there is disparity between their perception and reality, it is reality which must be adjusted - and big mommy government is the mechanism through which reality should be adjusted to meet their perceptions. No facts you can bring out will make a dent in their self-induced hallucinations because anything that conflicts with perception automatically does not exist.Are there any gun control supporters here that can actually engage in reasoned, logical debate?
Christ on a Pink Pony sometimes I miss the good ol' days when gun rights supporters were "losing".
When I started on-line debate of gun rights / gun control and constitutional issues (1993) those opposed to gun rights could actually construct and argument and would ardently defend it.
Of course back then they had a shaky framework of legal support for the collective / state / militia right interpretation and I guess that propped up their ego. Even with that disadvantage it was a great time for knowledgeable gun rights supporters because the anti's never had the philosophical and historical record on their side; all they had were a few aberrant lower federal court decisions from the 1940's to build their arguments on.
Heller and McDonald have begun to re-right the constitutional ship but the vehement gun rights haters are still out there but their supporters in the realm of idea exchange have devolved into a mob of excrement throwing monkeys.
I visit a lot of boards searching for quality discussions but all I find are guys like \(\(\(\/)/)/)/ who don't know what they don't know and believe that makes them geniuses.
They delight in their ignorance because that gives them a perceived moral superiority to the "barbaric gun nut". It seems as though possessing any technical knowledge of guns or of the rights theory embraced by the framers and the fundamental principles of the Constitution would debase them. All that comes from them are one-liners, "I'm smarter than you" replies or imbecilic questions in response to someone taking the time to compose an on-point answer to an earlier nonsensical question.
Isn't it ironic that people who want to impose so many rules on the actions of everyone else can't abide by the simple, universal rules of debate in discussing what they want to do?
Are there any gun control supporters here that can actually engage in reasoned, logical debate?
while i support the 2nd amendment, i do not support it with regard to felons and the mentally ill - i support checks for the foregoing for all weapon sales