An honest question on assault rifles.

[rjhenn]

Again, since I have no criminal record or advocacy for mindless anarchy and have NEVER advocated a rescinding of the 2nd Amendment, your insinuation is basically a slanderous lie. You have stated that you need an assault weapon because people disagree with you....that's the mindset of dictators, despots, communist and monarchial governments. Those are threats to liberty.

That's you, toodles. You said it, not me. And Britain and the USA have been allies for a LONG time, don't cha know.

Thanks for your honesty....you fascist git. Prattle on.

You clearly have no idea what he's talking about. No surprise there.

[rjhenn]

Not a citation of an actual “could have” that has actually occurred.

The objection was to stating that weapons other than AR-15s "could have" been used in recent mass shootings. Such weapons have been used in previous mass shootings.

[rjhenn]

One can have self defense without guns. And the 2nd says nothing about personal self defense. Heller does, however. But it says not all guns, not anywhere, not anytime. In other words, INFRINGED.

Fail

Which, again, is due to the nibbling away at the 2nd since the Civil War. And what sort of self defense are you thinking of, that can be effective "without guns". And, yes, there's been massive, and unconstitutional, infringement. The amendment clearly states "shall not be infringed".

[Taichiliberal]

Originally Posted by Taichiliberal
You originally said: https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...83#post2332383

Then you try to clean it up with some baseless BS about me opposing American liberty....That makes you TWICE the liar because your opinion is NOT fact or law. And gun control is NOT nullifying the 2nd amendment, as the AWB of 1994 left a plethora of weapons available that gunners inadvertently tell me are more efficient than the AR15 in certain respects.

The chronology of the posts makes you out to be a liar...your parroting denial and increasing false accusations non-withstanding. Unless you've got anything else, I'd say we're done.

Don't lie to me, traitor. I said we still need the 2nd Amendment because people like you exist. That is true, and then you put words in my mouth, claiming I want to shoot people who disagree with me. Clearly, you want to disarm the people, and I can just as easily claim that your intent is destroy their liberties, given that the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is to protect them from a tyrannical government.

Yep, like I previously said, you've got nothing else but belching forth the SOS of which the chronology of the posts makes out to be lies. You're done. Adios.

[Taichiliberal]

LOL... no moron, the posts show you to be an idiot who doesn't have a clue about guns. Thanks for again proving it with the stupidity above.

Once again, you prove to the objective reader to be SuperFreak(ing) dumb and a liar, as the chronology of the posts shows. As usual, your intellectual dishonesty is a pitiful display, as you cannot answer a simple question. Prattle on, bunky.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...40#post2334540

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...63#post2319263

[USFREEDOM911]

Once again, you prove to the objective reader to be SuperFreak(ing) dumb and a liar, as the chronology of the posts shows. As usual, your intellectual dishonesty is a pitiful display, as you cannot answer a simple question. Prattle on, bunky.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...40#post2334540

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...63#post2319263

Any time and every time you start using "chronology", it's obvious that you're desperately trying to make it appear you know what your talking about.

[Minister of Truth]

Yep, like I previously said, you've got nothing else but belching forth the SOS of which the chronology of the posts makes out to be lies. You're done. Adios.

You want to deny us our 2nd Amendment rights, you goddamn piece of shit.

[Superfreak]

Once again, you prove to the objective reader to be SuperFreak(ing) dumb and a liar, as the chronology of the posts shows. As usual, your intellectual dishonesty is a pitiful display, as you cannot answer a simple question. Prattle on, bunky.

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...40#post2334540

https://www.justplainpolitics.com/sh...63#post2319263

No moron. You are the one that fails to comprehend. You are the dishonest piece of shit that continues to try and make up definitions. As stated, you have no clue about guns.

[RB 60]

No moron. You are the one that fails to comprehend. You are the dishonest piece of shit that continues to try and make up definitions. As stated, you have no clue about guns.

We could always have Crypiss explain "military ballistics" to him

[Taichiliberal]

No moron. You are the one that fails to comprehend. You are the dishonest piece of shit that continues to try and make up definitions. As stated, you have no clue about guns.

that's it?!!? You give a "I know you are but what am I?" and just regurgitate your already disproven attack? Damn boy, you're just plain lame! No point in wasting any more time, space or effort on you. Adios.

[Taichiliberal]

You want to deny us our 2nd Amendment rights, you goddamn piece of shit.

Aww, widdle 3D is having a hissy fit! pathetic. He's done, dear readers.

[Legion]

[Minister of Truth]

Yep, like I previously said, you've got nothing else but belching forth the SOS of which the chronology of the posts makes out to be lies. You're done. Adios.

Looks like Taicheeze had a YUGE meltdown two weeks ago, and finally stopped sobbing long enough to come back and grace us with his presence. If only he wouldn't lie so much...

[Minister of Truth]

Here's an excellent article shredding the left's latest lie about the Bill of Rights:

And why wouldn’t they, when the right had such a long and broad pedigree? The 1689 English Bill of Rights — to which so many colonists had appealed warmly when appealing to the Crown — contained a right to bear arms that had precisely nothing to do with human bondage, and that had never been linked to it in either the British or colonial imaginations. Moreover, nothing in Blackstone’s widely read discussion of that right so much as touched on the issue (nor, for that matter, was it addressed by the great jurists who succeeded him). To those familiar with the antecedents of the federal right, it should come as no surprise that, before 1791, three of the four jurisdictions that boasted Second Amendment–style provisions within their constitutions were in the North (they were Pennsylvania, Vermont, and Massachusetts; North Carolina was the only Southern state that had codified such a right). If, magically, the idea of the private ownership of arms had become linked to bondage at the moment it hit North America, one would expect to see a connection between its adoption and the spread of slavery. In fact, one sees the opposite.

https://www.nationalreview.com/2018/...eading-claims/

[Superfreak]

that's it?!!? You give a "I know you are but what am I?" and just regurgitate your already disproven attack? Damn boy, you're just plain lame! No point in wasting any more time, space or effort on you. Adios.

Again you twit. The FACTS in this thread show that you not only made up definitions, but you also lie repeatedly about what is said. I know you are desperate to run away from your moronic comments and the above is your way of running. Everyone can see you for the hack that you are.