Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
You never saw a "30 round magazine clip" either. There is no such thing. There is such a thing as a clip, and such a thing as a magazine, but no such thing as a "magazine clip." I would think people would take the time to educate themselves before chiming in on a debate over legislation. Would you chime in on a debate over car safety regs with a comment about "wheel tires?"
Getting all worked up over a person just saying clip show's you are way out there.
”A free people ought not only be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who would attempt to abuse them, which would include their own Government.” — George Washington on the 2nd Amendment
My point was that your opinion is redundant and then you went on to say that arguing that way is senseless, which proved my point...
Your ability to comprehend basic language is on a pre-k grade level.
No. You did not read the article because if you had you'd know that in the very first senctence it clearly states "citizenry" which, by the way, are humans. That's ultimately what this is about. Humans own guns. Not rocks. Not birds. Not cars. Humans. Idiot. HUMANS.
That's opinion. Not fact. You know I'm sorry to break it to you but your opinion honestly is utterly worthless.
No you have proven over and over again that you're a complete imbecile. You seem to think your opinion is fact.
Meh, TL;DR.
You have no point and are only spouting ignorance in the face of diversity. Do some research into the issue before attempting to criticize others, okay?
BTW - the USCON is a compact only binding upon those who take an oath to it.
It's not a "living document".
IF those who are oathbound wish to weasel out of their oaths - it's up to the people to demand specific performance to the compact.
BTW - the USCON is a compact only binding upon those who take an oath to it.
It's not a "living document".
IF those who are oathbound wish to weasel out of their oaths - it's up to the people to demand specific performance to the compact.
Progressives believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document. Their view is it can be easily changed to suit the needs of a changing society. That makes it a "situational" document, much like "situational ethics" -- anything goes. So, what was deemed of value yesterday, can be discarded today, according to the desires of those in power and position to make those changes.
Those in the Tea Party movement and conservatives alike understand the Constitution from the view of original intent where the Founders intent guides our understanding of its application.
He's right though. In a siege scenario against a modern force IEDs and small artillery are far more effective, as various 3rd world crapholes have shown time and again against our complete joke of a military.
Progressives believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document. Their view is it can be easily changed to suit the needs of a changing society. That makes it a "situational" document, much like "situational ethics" -- anything goes. So, what was deemed of value yesterday, can be discarded today, according to the desires of those in power and position to make those changes.
Those in the Tea Party movement and conservatives alike understand the Constitution from the view of original intent where the Founders intent guides our understanding of its application.
Which founding father(s)? What was their intent on, say, women's suffrage? What about Jefferson' male slaves? Was it his intent to count their entire person as a man or as property before he compromised with the 2/3 clause? There were faults to the constitution which is why the Bill of Rights were amended to it right at ratification.
Maybe you should realize what was intended when the amendment process was written into the constitution. Surely the founding fathers didn't intend for it to be changed?? Goddamned progressives...
Why don't you anti gun people learn history before opening your mouth and inserting your foot?
Bad example, since I really don't think that you can hold off a guard unit neverless the U.S Army with the weapons that you are permitted to own now. Nazi Germany did not have drones, Apache helicopters, cruise missles, bunker busters, and various other crap that the public does not even know about yet. That knucklehead in charge of the NRA is pimping many of his more gullible members into believing that we can successfully hold off the U.S government with a few semi-automatic weapons. I actually wonder how much does he have invested financially in the gun manufactors. Truthfully, I would be more inclined to believe him if he was not as wealthy as he is.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Tom brokaw: It’s ‘Far-Reaching’ To Think You Need Guns To Fight Back Against The Government
