Lets do some serious talking about gun laws.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

I have to agree more with Vivienne than you. SCOTUS is the ultimate determiner of how the Second Amendment is interpreted. It does not matter one iota how you, Vivienne or I interpret the amendment. And SCOTUS, which is more Conservative than Liberal, has consistently ruled that the Second Amendment is limited in the freedoms it gives citizens regarding the right to bear arms. And how do the justices on the Supreme Court get there? We vote for the President who nominates them and we vote for our representatives in Congress who approve the nominations. So we, the people, do have a significant say in how the Second Amendment is to be interpreted.

We've discussed this before. With several of the SCOTUS justices getting up there in years, the next POTUS will probably have a great say in determining the future interpretation of the Second Amendment.

Noticed how you've pinned your pathetic "hopes" and "fantasy beliefs" on a septuagenarian candidate you hope can survive the physical ordeal of a grueling political campaign and a FBI investigation, speedy, and not on current rulings. The Founding Fathers were clear in their intent, and your unconstitutional interpretation remains contrary to theirs.

[Luckyducky32]

1 thing the gun grabbers always say is, "people need to get a take a class and get a license, just like a drivers license!!"

I'll agree to that if they lift all NFA restrictions and the 86 ban and tax stamps. Cause if I can go buy a 700hp car from the factory, I should be able to buy a SAW without question.

A question I do have about being "licensed gun owners" are we still allowed private sales? If so do we ask to see the buyers license? Cause when I sell a car I sure as hell don't ask to see Their DL.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Luckyducky32

1 thing the gun grabbers always say is, "people need to get a take a class and get a license, just like a drivers license!!"

With all due respect ... you skipped the important part ...


... driving a motor vehicle is a privilege, not a Constitutionally protected right.

Of course, someone like Hillarious-No-More, who doesn't drive, can't wrap her brain damaged head around such a thing! And since she "hears things" believing someone is shooting at her ..... she should not be trusted with a firearm either.

[Jackie S]

I was just watching CNN's Wolf, and Ron Paul was the guest.

To Wolf Blitzer's dismay, Paul stated that he was a backer of the 2d Amendment, and Lawmakers should focus on inner city murders, (Chicago), and crime rather than stripping law abiding citizens of their Rights.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Jackie S

I was just watching CNN's Wolf, and Ron Paul was the guest.

To Wolf Blitzer's dismay, Paul stated that he was a backer of the 2d Amendment, and Lawmakers should focus on inner city murders, (Chicago), and crime rather than stripping law abiding citizens of their Rights.

It's almost bizarre, but clearly "disturbing," that our government cannot AND WILL NOT protect citizens from being slaughtered, but at the same time SOME in that same government want to disarm the citizens so they cannot protect themselves.

(Sarcasm Alert!)

Additionally, the "licensing and training" mandates anticipated by the know-nothings-about-reality crowd will quell the senseless killings in Chicago in the poor neighborhoods no doubt! After all a "Federal law" might be more "persuasive" than some silly City ordinance or two!!!

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's almost bizarre, but clearly "disturbing," that our government cannot AND WILL NOT protect citizens from being slaughtered, but at the same time SOME in that same government want to disarm the citizens so they cannot protect themselves.

(Sarcasm Alert!)

Additionally, the "licensing and training" mandates anticipated by the know-nothings-about-reality crowd will quell the senseless killings in Chicago in the poor neighborhoods no doubt! After all a "Federal law" might be more "persuasive" than some silly City ordinance or two!!!

Well that's just goes to show you what happens to people who are in a position of power. Their brain shuts off and their ego takes over. No one really benefits in the long run.

Jim

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Well that's just goes to show you what happens to people who are in a position of power. Their brain shuts off and their ego takes over. No one really benefits in the long run.

Jim

Your statement "assumes" they have a "brain" to "shut off"~!

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Your statement "assumes" they have a "brain" to "shut off"~!

Yeah, I guess I am being generous and giving them the benefit of the doubt, lol.


Jim

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

Yeah, I guess I am being generous and giving them the benefit of the doubt, lol.


Jim

Anyone who believes mandated licensing and training by the Feds is going to end the carnage in Chicago can't possibly have "a brain," and anyone who knows it won't, but keeps on pushing the idea, should have a lobotomy with a sand bag replacement.

Alternatively, the "Stalag 17" response ...of tin cans on the feet and tossed into the street!

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

Noticed how you've pinned your pathetic "hopes" and "fantasy beliefs" on a septuagenarian candidate you hope can survive the physical ordeal of a grueling political campaign and a FBI investigation, speedy, and not on current rulings. The Founding Fathers were clear in their intent, and your unconstitutional interpretation remains contrary to theirs.

Once again you are showing your stupidity in not even trying to understand what I wrote.

I'll repeat: It does not matter how either you or I interpret the Second Amendment. It does not matter what the intent of the Founding Fathers was when they wrote the Second Amendment. What matters is how the states and the court system all the way up to SCOTUS interpret the Second Amendment. It is not MY interpretation that counts. It is not YOUR interpretation that counts. GOT IT????

And BTW, when did I ever say that I was voting for Clinton? Again, you simply do not take the time to read and understand.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

It's almost bizarre, but clearly "disturbing," that our government cannot AND WILL NOT protect citizens from being slaughtered, but at the same time SOME in that same government want to disarm the citizens so they cannot protect themselves.

(Sarcasm Alert!)

Additionally, the "licensing and training" mandates anticipated by the know-nothings-about-reality crowd will quell the senseless killings in Chicago in the poor neighborhoods no doubt! After all a "Federal law" might be more "persuasive" than some silly City ordinance or two!!!

Or ...


.. sit on the floor and pout like a bunch of immature do-nothings.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Once again you are showing your stupidity in not even trying to understand what I wrote.

I'll repeat: It does not matter how either you or I interpret the Second Amendment. It does not matter what the intent of the Founding Fathers was when they wrote the Second Amendment. What matters is how the states and the court system all the way up to SCOTUS interpret the Second Amendment. It is not MY interpretation that counts. It is not YOUR interpretation that counts. GOT IT????

And BTW, when did I ever say that I was voting for Clinton? Again, you simply do not take the time to read and understand.

The Supreme Court has ruled against your stupid lib-retard position, speedy, but you stupidly pretend it hasn't: "Got it?"




BTW, this picture more accurately depicts Speedy's crew.

[LexusLover]

^^^^ Leave them in for the bus ride to Chicago this coming Friday night!

I think a Congressional "Field Trip" is in order..... WITHOUT SECURITY!!!!

[southtown4488]

Gun death rates in the U.S. compared to other western democracies
(Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year)

United States 10.54 (2014)
United Kingdom 0.23 (2011)
France 2.83 (2012)
Spain 0.62 (mixed years)

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by southtown4488

Gun death rates in the U.S. compared to other western democracies
(Firearm-related death rate per 100,000 population per year)

United States 10.54 (2014)
United Kingdom 0.23 (2011)
France 2.83 (2012)
Spain 0.62 (mixed years)

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/...countries.jpeg

What happened?

http://crimeresearch.org/wp-content/...atest-year.png

Did you forget to list Mexico which has stringent gun control laws? How about Chile, Russia, and Brazil? Liberal gun control?

Keep posting, junior. Your credibility gets lower (if it can get lower) with each of your posts.