Liberals like ozone and honda celebrate mass shootings because they give them an excuse to pander for gun control.
If you can't see the guns should be regulated at least as much as cars and driving, then you are a dumbshit. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal.
You don't have a natural constitutionally protected right to drive.
And you don't have a protected right for anything beyond a well regulated militia.
The "militia" at the time the constitution was written wasn't what we think of as "militia" today. It was those (in addition to the army and navy) that the US government could call upon to serve at the whim of the government. Damned right the government's forces should be "well regulated" by an armed populace free to defend themselves.
Liberals like ozone and honda celebrate mass shootings because they give them an excuse to pander for gun control.
If you can't see the guns should be regulated at least as much as cars and driving, then you are a dumbshit. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal.
Yet fatal car accidents still happen everyday...
And more would occur if people were required to do very minimal, or zero training to operate a car
C'mon, you're better than the dumbshit knee jerk response.
Liberals like ozone and honda celebrate mass shootings because they give them an excuse to pander for gun control.
If you can't see the guns should be regulated at least as much as cars and driving, then you are a dumbshit. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal.
Yet fatal car accidents still happen everyday...
And more would occur if people were required to do very minimal, or zero training to operate a car
C'mon, you're better than the dumbshit knee jerk response.
Cars kill more people than guns in the US. HTH.
Holy shit. Does common sense need to be spoon fed to you? To compare them, you'd need to normalize for the amount of time each person uses each. Get it?
Liberals like ozone and honda celebrate mass shootings because they give them an excuse to pander for gun control.
If you can't see the guns should be regulated at least as much as cars and driving, then you are a dumbshit. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal.
You don't have a natural constitutionally protected right to drive.
And you don't have a protected right for anything beyond a well regulated militia.
The "militia" at the time the constitution was written wasn't what we think of as "militia" today. It was those (in addition to the army and navy) that the US government could call upon to serve at the whim of the government. Damned right the government's forces should be "well regulated" by an armed populace free to defend themselves.
And that is the only group that is guaranteed a "right" to arms. The rest was just revisionist action by the gov't to please the gun manufacturers, their shills the NRA, and those that grew up beating off to John Wayne movies.
Liberals like ozone and honda celebrate mass shootings because they give them an excuse to pander for gun control.
If you can't see the guns should be regulated at least as much as cars and driving, then you are a dumbshit. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal.
You don't have a natural constitutionally protected right to drive.
And you don't have a protected right for anything beyond a well regulated militia.
The "militia" at the time the constitution was written wasn't what we think of as "militia" today. It was those (in addition to the army and navy) that the US government could call upon to serve at the whim of the government. Damned right the government's forces should be "well regulated" by an armed populace free to defend themselves.
And that is the only group that is guaranteed a "right" to arms. The rest was just revisionist action by the gov't to please the gun manufacturers, their shills the NRA, and those that grew up beating off to John Wayne movies.
The right to bare arms in defense of oneself from all aggressors including but not limited to government forces is a natural right that always existed. The 2nd Amendment documented that the government could not take away that right.
Liberals like ozone and honda celebrate mass shootings because they give them an excuse to pander for gun control.
If you can't see the guns should be regulated at least as much as cars and driving, then you are a dumbshit. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal.
You don't have a natural constitutionally protected right to drive.
And you don't have a protected right for anything beyond a well regulated militia.
The "militia" at the time the constitution was written wasn't what we think of as "militia" today. It was those (in addition to the army and navy) that the US government could call upon to serve at the whim of the government. Damned right the government's forces should be "well regulated" by an armed populace free to defend themselves.
And that is the only group that is guaranteed a "right" to arms. The rest was just revisionist action by the gov't to please the gun manufacturers, their shills the NRA, and those that grew up beating off to John Wayne movies.
The right to bare arms in defense of oneself from all aggressors including but not limited to government forces is a natural right that always existed. The 2nd Amendment documented that the government could not take away that right.
Think about this. The right to self defense has always existed. But the right to have guns, has not. How could the right to guns have existed before guns existed?
Any right to guns, exists only because the gov't allows it -- just like it does not allow individuals to own bazookas or anti aircraft guns.
Liberals like ozone and honda celebrate mass shootings because they give them an excuse to pander for gun control.
If you can't see the guns should be regulated at least as much as cars and driving, then you are a dumbshit. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal.
You don't have a natural constitutionally protected right to drive.
And you don't have a protected right for anything beyond a well regulated militia.
The "militia" at the time the constitution was written wasn't what we think of as "militia" today. It was those (in addition to the army and navy) that the US government could call upon to serve at the whim of the government. Damned right the government's forces should be "well regulated" by an armed populace free to defend themselves.
And that is the only group that is guaranteed a "right" to arms. The rest was just revisionist action by the gov't to please the gun manufacturers, their shills the NRA, and those that grew up beating off to John Wayne movies.
The right to bare arms in defense of oneself from all aggressors including but not limited to government forces is a natural right that always existed. The 2nd Amendment documented that the government could not take away that right.
Think about this. The right to self defense has always existed. But the right to have guns, has not. How could the right to guns have existed before guns existed?
Any right to guns, exists only because the gov't allows it -- just like it does not allow individuals to own bazookas or anti aircraft guns.
The NRA has been brainwashing you.
The extent to which the constitution and the second amendment speak to this issue isn't about "guns". It's about "arms" (i.e. weapons).
Liberals like ozone and honda celebrate mass shootings because they give them an excuse to pander for gun control.
If you can't see the guns should be regulated at least as much as cars and driving, then you are a dumbshit. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal.
You don't have a natural constitutionally protected right to drive.
And you don't have a protected right for anything beyond a well regulated militia.
The "militia" at the time the constitution was written wasn't what we think of as "militia" today. It was those (in addition to the army and navy) that the US government could call upon to serve at the whim of the government. Damned right the government's forces should be "well regulated" by an armed populace free to defend themselves.
And that is the only group that is guaranteed a "right" to arms. The rest was just revisionist action by the gov't to please the gun manufacturers, their shills the NRA, and those that grew up beating off to John Wayne movies.
The right to bare arms in defense of oneself from all aggressors including but not limited to government forces is a natural right that always existed. The 2nd Amendment documented that the government could not take away that right.
Think about this. The right to self defense has always existed. But the right to have guns, has not. How could the right to guns have existed before guns existed?
Any right to guns, exists only because the gov't allows it -- just like it does not allow individuals to own bazookas or anti aircraft guns.
The NRA has been brainwashing you.
The extent to which the constitution and the second amendment speak to this issue isn't about "guns". It's about "arms" (i.e. weapons).
Great. Then you can use knives -- and guns can be regulated as heavily as bazookas and anti aircraft weapons.
Liberals like ozone and honda celebrate mass shootings because they give them an excuse to pander for gun control.
If you can't see the guns should be regulated at least as much as cars and driving, then you are a dumbshit. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal.
You don't have a natural constitutionally protected right to drive.
And you don't have a protected right for anything beyond a well regulated militia.
The "militia" at the time the constitution was written wasn't what we think of as "militia" today. It was those (in addition to the army and navy) that the US government could call upon to serve at the whim of the government. Damned right the government's forces should be "well regulated" by an armed populace free to defend themselves.
And that is the only group that is guaranteed a "right" to arms. The rest was just revisionist action by the gov't to please the gun manufacturers, their shills the NRA, and those that grew up beating off to John Wayne movies.
The right to bare arms in defense of oneself from all aggressors including but not limited to government forces is a natural right that always existed. The 2nd Amendment documented that the government could not take away that right.
Think about this. The right to self defense has always existed. But the right to have guns, has not. How could the right to guns have existed before guns existed?
Any right to guns, exists only because the gov't allows it -- just like it does not allow individuals to own bazookas or anti aircraft guns.
The NRA has been brainwashing you.
The extent to which the constitution and the second amendment speak to this issue isn't about "guns". It's about "arms" (i.e. weapons).
Great. Then you can use knives -- and guns can be regulated as heavily as bazookas and anti aircraft weapons.
I sexually identify as an Attack Helicopter. Ever since I was a boy I dreamed of soaring over the oilfields dropping hot sticky loads on disgusting foreigners. People say to me that a person being a helicopter is impossible and I'm fucking retarded but I don't care, I'm beautiful. I'm having a plastic surgeon install rotary blades, 30 mm cannons and AMG-114 Hellfire missiles on my body. From now on I want you guys to call me "Apache" and respect my right to kill from above and kill needlessly. If you can't accept me you're a heliphobe and need to check your vehicle privilege. Thank you for being so understanding.
Liberals like ozone and honda celebrate mass shootings because they give them an excuse to pander for gun control.
If you can't see the guns should be regulated at least as much as cars and driving, then you are a dumbshit. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal.
Yet fatal car accidents still happen everyday...
And more would occur if people were required to do very minimal, or zero training to operate a car
C'mon, you're better than the dumbshit knee jerk response.
Cars kill more people than guns in the US. HTH.
Exactly and there's shit ton of regulations on vehicles, tests of ability, suspension of license. Now if we only had the same for guns.
Liberals like ozone and honda celebrate mass shootings because they give them an excuse to pander for gun control.
If you can't see the guns should be regulated at least as much as cars and driving, then you are a dumbshit. Doesn't matter if you are conservative or liberal.
You don't have a natural constitutionally protected right to drive.
And you don't have a protected right for anything beyond a well regulated militia.
The "militia" at the time the constitution was written wasn't what we think of as "militia" today. It was those (in addition to the army and navy) that the US government could call upon to serve at the whim of the government. Damned right the government's forces should be "well regulated" by an armed populace free to defend themselves.
And that is the only group that is guaranteed a "right" to arms. The rest was just revisionist action by the gov't to please the gun manufacturers, their shills the NRA, and those that grew up beating off to John Wayne movies.
The right to bare arms in defense of oneself from all aggressors including but not limited to government forces is a natural right that always existed. The 2nd Amendment documented that the government could not take away that right.
Think about this. The right to self defense has always existed. But the right to have guns, has not. How could the right to guns have existed before guns existed?
Any right to guns, exists only because the gov't allows it -- just like it does not allow individuals to own bazookas or anti aircraft guns.
The NRA has been brainwashing you.
The extent to which the constitution and the second amendment speak to this issue isn't about "guns". It's about "arms" (i.e. weapons).
Great. Then you can use knives -- and guns can be regulated as heavily as bazookas and anti aircraft weapons.
Logic, reason, basic comprehension of grammar - these aren't strengths of yours it seems. Words have meaning.
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"Arms" - your right to keep and bear them (all of them, not a select list) shall not be infringed. Of course, elected men wanting more and more power over you and me have put people on the supreme court that would agree to change the meaning of those words from what they actually say, so that those men could achieve that goal of imposing their will over you and me.
The people arguing for guns always remind me of religious people. It's funny how all arguments sound the same when you've made up your mind first and come up with the argument second.
Just admit you love guns and that's all that matters.
Comments
Any right to guns, exists only because the gov't allows it -- just like it does not allow individuals to own bazookas or anti aircraft guns.
The NRA has been brainwashing you.
Blackie is schooling you. Stop while you're ahead.
Sincerely,
The Bored
Hitting him with a hate crime charge is really going to sting. If only 9 counts of premeditated murder were enough to get him the death penalty.
Why don't Hondo and Ozone tell us what laws they want and show us how those laws work in places like Chicago?
Thanks in advance
"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
"Arms" - your right to keep and bear them (all of them, not a select list) shall not be infringed. Of course, elected men wanting more and more power over you and me have put people on the supreme court that would agree to change the meaning of those words from what they actually say, so that those men could achieve that goal of imposing their will over you and me.
This thread delivers.
Isle Gun Death Rate Lowest In U.S.
Not having borders with states that sell guns to whoever helps
Just admit you love guns and that's all that matters.