gun control nuts

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by dilbert firestorm

that was the preliminary report. its likely they did a cursory look at his brain case and noticed no anomalies.

The shit left between his ears or the shit on the ceiling?

[SpeedRacerXXX]

[QUOTE=LexusLover;1060070586]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

As long as you realize I interpret what I say, and you don't, we'll be fine. You are one of the "them" about whom I am talking. It doesn't matter to me, personally, what their interpretation is if it restricts my possession of a firearm by some fantasy interpretation of the 2nd amendment and pretending to "know" what the "founding fathers" were thinking even they they did and said differently.

For instance: you apparently think the 2nd amendment only protects firearms that are NOT for the purpose of killing people! That's the kind of hair brain interpretation about which I mentioned. The firearm(s) I have and have had for my self-protection and the protection of anyone in the household in which I find myself is for one purpose: shooting anyone who comes at us unannounced and uninvited.... if they die so be it.

The government doesn't give me the "right" to possess a firearm.

Again that's where yours and my philosophies collide.

It also collides with Liberal thinking in that regard .... that the 2nd amendment protects only hunting weapons. It doesn't just protect "hunting weapons"!

Again, you realize that you are depending on YOUR interpretation of the 2nd Amendment which may or may not match the reality that exists. You seem to think you know what I feel about the 2nd Amendment but your 2nd and last paragraphs show how little you actually know about my feelings on the subject.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I disagree with your statement.

Do you have a concealed handgun license?

Thank you! I was going to disagree with the statement but I think it has more meaning coming from someone who owns guns.

[SpeedRacerXXX]

Originally Posted by I B Hankering

It's only "vague" in your lib-retard mind, speedy, because the Founding Fathers made it fucking clear that the citizen had the right to own guns, you equivocating jackass -- NOW the SCOTUS is telling you again what the Founding Fathers intended, and you're still being a dumb-fuck retard!


You're a fucking mendacious liar when you claim the Founding Fathers were "vague" and "unclear", speedy, because the majority of them were explicit in saying that it was a fundamental right for American citizens to own guns, speedy.

Fucking idiot. That is NOT what the 2nd Amendment states. It is what you would LIKE the 2nd Amendment to state. People have the right to own guns. If you say or even imply that I've said anything other than that you are lying once again. Laws have limited what guns can be owned.

I'm not sure why you are singling me out. Here is what Dilbert wrote on this subject in post # 30:


"it was the way it was written. it is a compromise language.

there were states that did not want to allow gun ownership. others wanted it limited to militia and others wanted the ability to own it whether they were in the militia or not."

I would say that Dilbert also believes the 2nd Amendment is vague. Even LL mentioned the vagueness of the 2nd Amendment in post #36:

"The "vagueness" of the amendments anticipated changes in our society and the SCOTUS has recognized the "morphing" of our society and crafting exceptions to the general rules to meet those changes and the new circumstances created by them."

Below is what SCOTUS said in McDonald v. Chicago, which pretty much matches my opinion on the subject. You can continue to rant and rave and LIE about how I feel on the subject if you like.

"It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms 'is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose'. . . .We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as 'prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill', 'laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms'. . . . We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents' doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms."

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

I guess you actually believe you are qualified to give me advice or permission ... It is painfully obvious you are NOT!

#1: You don't even know what is "deadly force"!
#2: You are not familiar with the "continuum of force"!
#3: You've had no personal protective training (or you skipped classes!)

Now go fantasize a new conspiracy.

You are only familiar with text book words and phrases. Quit reading "True Detective Magazines" and enter the real world. You don't know nearly as much as you think.

Jim

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Fucking idiot. That is NOT what the 2nd Amendment states. It is what you would LIKE the 2nd Amendment to state. People have the right to own guns. If you say or even imply that I've said anything other than that you are lying once again. Laws have limited what guns can be owned.

I'm not sure why you are singling me out. Here is what Dilbert wrote on this subject in post # 30:

"it was the way it was written. it is a compromise language.

there were states that did not want to allow gun ownership. others wanted it limited to militia and others wanted the ability to own it whether they were in the militia or not."

I would say that Dilbert also believes the 2nd Amendment is vague. Even LL mentioned the vagueness of the 2nd Amendment in post #36:

"The "vagueness" of the amendments anticipated changes in our society and the SCOTUS has recognized the "morphing" of our society and crafting exceptions to the general rules to meet those changes and the new circumstances created by them."

Below is what SCOTUS said in McDonald v. Chicago, which pretty much matches my opinion on the subject. You can continue to rant and rave and LIE about how I feel on the subject if you like.

"It is important to keep in mind that Heller, while striking down a law that prohibited the possession of handguns in the home, recognized that the right to keep and bear arms is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose . . .We made it clear in Heller that our holding did not cast doubt on such longstanding regulatory measures as 'prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms'. . . . We repeat those assurances here. Despite municipal respondents 'doomsday proclamations, incorporation does not imperil every law regulating firearms."

You're a mendacious, muddle-minded jackass, speedy. The Founding Fathers were not fucking "vague", you equivocating lib-retard, they fucking knew exactly what they meant when they wrote the article, and it damn well means -- and always has meant -- that the American citizen has the right to own and bear arms, you lying SOB. It's your miserable ilk's equivocation and parsing of words and commas that keeps bringing the article to court, not the Founding Fathers meaning and intent. They were clear.

"The people are not to be disarmed of their weapons. They are left in full posession of them."
Zachariah Johnson.

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You are only familiar with text book words and phrases.Jim

Keep dreaming you know anything about me. Or were you "fishing"?

Where do you get your "detective magazines"? Or do you just stick with "Blazing Muzzles" for your tactical instructions?

MOJO .. you're making a fool of yourself.

Apparently you've never had any personal protection training, or you wouldn't be trying to attack my training, experience, and re-qualifications. But what you don't understand is ... you just violated the #1 rule in the RW ... which is ... don't underestimate your opponent. What you've posted on here demonstrates clearly you don't have a fucking clue about what you are posting ... just more babble, like your fucked up conspiracies.

I knew more than you about the topic when I was 3 and got my first cap gun ... you keep showing it ... so knowing more than you on the topic is nothing to crow about, trust me! Keep beating your chest and yelling like Tarzan.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Keep dreaming you know anything about me. Or were you "fishing"?

Where do you get your "detective magazines"? Or do you just stick with "Blazing Muzzles" for your tactical instructions?

MOJO .. you're making a fool of yourself.

Apparently you've never had any personal protection training, or you wouldn't be trying to attack my training, experience, and re-qualifications. But what you don't understand is ... you just violated the #1 rule in the RW ... which is ... don't underestimate your opponent.

You're a legend in your own mind.


Jim

[LexusLover]

[QUOTE=SpeedRacerXXX;1060073436]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Again, you realize that you are depending on YOUR interpretation of the 2nd Amendment .....

I've depended on case law from the SCOTUS to determine the interpretation of the 2nd amendment, along with the other amendments that frame our lives on a regular basis.

So don't judge me by your standards. In the above arena my standards are vastly superior to yours in scope, training, and experience. It shows!

You have misinterpreted my reference to the original crafting of the Bill of Rights ... the vagueness has to do more with the application as society changes and not the meaning ... and there is a difference with drafting legal documents that must be applied into the future without listing all of the possible scenarios that may or not be anticipated at the moment of drafting. The application of the 2nd amendment as intended by the authors and the people at that time who voted on it are based on the immediate history that made them believe it was necessary and the environment in which they lived at the time.

The purpose still exists today. In fact the last year or so, and particularly 2017, has demonstrated that it is more important than ever that citizens of this country remain armed and well trained with their weapons.

That's something you Liberals don't understand about your war on cops, your war on conservatism, and your acceptance of violence as a response to political discourse. You are demonstrating the appropriateness for conservatives to keep their weapons and make certain they are trained to use them effectively.

Violence is not the best way to resolve disputes, but it appears that is the preference of the Liberals .. otherwise they would put a stop to the assaults on conservatives. Before you respond: Are you sure it wasn't Paddock at an anti-Trump rally in the video circulated?

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Mr MojoRisin

You're a legend in your own mind.


Jim

Not really. I just have one. You don't.

(Please don't interpret my lack of response to your drivel in the next few hours as a tacit agreement with your fantasies about yourself and others.)

[Unique_Carpenter]

You guys amuse me.

The second amendment was drafted at the point in time that there was a firearm in nearly every citizens home.
Hunting, self defence, etc. were all accepted but unstated reasons.

What I find of interest, is the inclusion of militia. Note that the 2nd is not citizen rights mistakenly interpreted to flow from militia rights, this is militia rights being added to accepted civilian rights.

One only has to understand the history of Capt John Parker's stand at the Lexington Green to understand this.

Does the concept of the government searching for weapons among civilians sound familiar?

Last, although the Posse Comitatus Act became law just after the civil war, there are references in discussion material that the Brit march on Lexington over a century before was mentioned as a preventable example.

Thank you for attending today's lesson in: learn from history or be doomed to repeat it.

[I B Hankering]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

You guys amuse me.

The second amendment was drafted at the point in time that there was a firearm in nearly every citizens home.
Hunting, self defence, etc. were all accepted but unstated reasons.

What I find of interest, is the inclusion of militia. Note that the 2nd is not citizen rights mistakenly interpreted to flow from militia rights, this is militia rights being added to accepted civilian rights.

One only has to understand the history of Capt John Parker's stand at the Lexington Green to understand this.

Does the concept of the government searching for weapons among civilians sound familiar?

Last, although the Posse Comitatus Act became law just after the civil war, there are references in discussion material that the Brit march on Lexington over a century before was mentioned as a preventable example.

Thank you for attending today's lesson in: learn from history or be doomed to repeat it.

Bravo!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

The second amendment was drafted at the point in time that there was a firearm in nearly every citizens home.

On the back drop of "The King" having instructed British soldiers to enter their homes and take their firearms, which is precisely what the 2nd amendment was intended to prevent .. in conjunction with the 4th amendment that assured their security in their homes and places where they may be from the whimsical and indiscriminate intrusion by the government. Add to that their concern was not the "colonial governments (states)" but the central government (the Feds), which is why the Bill of Rights were focused so long as a prohibition against the Feds.

As an aside does it seem odd to anyone that the same people who want Government to restrict what types of firearms and the purpose of those firearms citizens can keep in their homes, do not want that same Government to regulate two guys butt fucking each other in the privacy of their homes? The Liberals!

[LexusLover]

Originally Posted by SpeedRacerXXX

Fucking idiot. That is NOT what the 2nd Amendment states.

Here's what it "states":

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.

[Mr MojoRisin]

Originally Posted by LexusLover

Not really. I just have one. You don't.

(Please don't interpret my lack of response to your drivel in the next few hours as a tacit agreement with your fantasies about yourself and others.)

Hahaha, You're all about nothing. You should look up the "You Tuber" Jason Blahah you're in league with that dreamer.

Jim