- Joined
- Sep 22, 2012
- Messages
- 42,430
- Reaction score
- 12,599
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Fighting for their right to stalk and kill. How pathetic.
Nope. We will wait on you.
Fighting for their right to stalk and kill. How pathetic.
Q: How many laws does it take before they will be "perfect"?
A: Zero.
Why?: Because criminals ignore the law which means the only people being affected by gun laws are innocent people.
Lots of projection going on here....You were talking about the single rally in one county making the whole thing a fail, and I showed you what a fail actually looks like. So in true fashion you can only come back and twist, turn, and mouth foam over nothing....But hey, we are all aware that progressives have nothing but pejorative, and personal attack...They really are like children.
This absurd argument can be used against literally any law. Criminals will just ignore murder and terrorism laws!
So do you think there should be no laws, or only no gun laws?
So you got the point of my post. Good. The point of course was to show that no laws will ever be perfect. So your question of "Because apparently existing gun laws are perfect?" is equally as absurd as my arguement.
I believe that civilians should be allowed to own any gun that is in the military. That was the whole point of "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd amendment. To keep the civilians on equal footing with the government.
Lame. I believe everyone who has voted republican and caused the outsourcing of our jobs, the lowering of our wages, the high pollution in the water and food and increases in cancers should be housed in warehouses and have to wait to see if they are allowed back inside the US. We don't all get what we want in a society whose basic premise is individual rights.
Those people all looked out of control. I saw crazy eyes everywhere.
Lame. I believe everyone who has voted republican and caused the outsourcing of our jobs, the lowering of our wages, the high pollution in the water and food and increases in cancers should be housed in warehouses and have to wait to see if they are allowed back inside the US. We don't all get what we want in a society whose basic premise is individual rights.
The people who live in Redding and Shasta County are pretty much right out of deliverance.
I believe that civilians should be allowed to own any gun that is in the military. That was the whole point of "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd amendment. To keep the civilians on equal footing with the government.
The people who live in Redding and Shasta County are pretty much right out of deliverance.
Actually it was so Southern Slave owners could use white militias (gangs) to find, shoot and or torture run away slaves. The only reason we have a second amendment was because the slave owning criminals knew the North despised their ugly lifestyle, and might ban the guns they used to exploit and kill blacks.
Wonderful history, eh?
University of California at Davis Law Review
Actually it was so Southern slave owners could use white militias (i.e., death squads) to find, shoot and or torture run away slaves. The only reason we have a second amendment was because the slave owning criminals knew the North despised their ugly lifestyle, and might ban the guns they used to exploit and kill blacks.
Wonderful history, eh?
University of California at Davis Law Review
States could already do that. I have read/heard a billion times that the need for militia powers which drove the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was because of the inability to dispatch one during Shay's Rebellion but if an autocratic liberal links a law school article, clearly all our historians are wrong. :roll:
Why am I not surprised that race and racism was brought into this discussion?
btw...you DID notice that your link was not really from the University of California right? That it is a .org site?
psst...it wasn't even from a law school article...it was from a .org site. Schools are .edu.
States could already do that. I have read/heard a billion times that the need for militia powers which drove the transition from the Articles of Confederation to the Constitution was because of the inability to dispatch one during Shay's Rebellion but if an autocratic liberal links a law school article, clearly all our historians are wrong. :roll:
Uh, yeah, you wouldn't want a constitutional scholar to discuss how the second amendment came into being due to southern slaveowner's fears. Let's not get facts in the way of your NRA narrative.
Those people all looked out of control. I saw crazy eyes everywhere.
Pssst: it's a famous article that totally debunks the gun lobby myth, published originally in U.C. Davis Law Review. Deal with the merits not your ignorance of the publication facts.
Link me to a real constiutional scholar and I would consider it. Since you haven't done that why should I listen?
Oh and btw, Carl T Bogus is anti-gun...why should I listen to anything he says?
Yep, a journal, big whoop. Getting something published in a journal isn't that hard, nor does it have to be factual. BTW, here's his home page...
Carl T. Bogus
Where does it say that he is a Constitutional Scholar?
This is the best you can do? BWHHWHHAHAHHAH!
Stay with your ahistorical NRA narratives. They become you.
So you got the point of my post. Good. The point of course was to show that no laws will ever be perfect. So your question of "Because apparently existing gun laws are perfect?" is equally as absurd as my arguement.
I believe that civilians should be allowed to own any gun that is in the military. That was the whole point of "shall not be infringed" in the 2nd amendment. To keep the civilians on equal footing with the government.