Jump to content

More Bathroom Reading

wztirem
 Share

Recommended Posts

wztirem Newbie

wztirem

Posted
Posted


  1. Why the 'Citizen Militia' Theory Is the Worst Pro-Gun Argument Ever
    The Atlantic-Jan 31, 2013
    Why the 'Citizen Militia' Theory Is the Worst Pro-Gun Argument Ever ... right to gun ownership, unrelated to membership in a state militia. But the ...

  2. 6.jpg
    WND.com
    Ray Kelly on gun legislation: "We need a comprehensive federal ...
    CNN (blog)-Jan 28, 2013
    As the nation continues to grapple with the on-going gun debate, this evening at ... The militia was composed of every able adult so the problem now is all us shirking ... was a dismal failure that prevented nothing...and this is a fact not a theory. ... of time and GOVERMENTS have been the WORST offenders.

  3. 6.jpg
    Washington Post
    The ever-subtle geniuses at the NRA strike again
    Atlanta Journal Constitution (blog)-Jan 16, 2013
    The “militia” of th 2A is the same as the Congressionally-controlled “militia” of Article 1, Section 8, and if any pro-gun folks want to ..... The only thing worse than one deranged idiot with a gun , is two .... Maybe the list of those banned from ownership ought to include anyone who argues that private citizens ...

  4. 6.jpg
    Yahoo! News: All the crazy news that fits and more gun nuts
    Baltimore Post-Examiner-Jan 13, 2013
    On Wednesday he met with pro gun control groups and Thursday he met ... to sign a White House petition demanding the British citizen (Piers Morgan) be ... Let's not let arguments over the Constitution's Second Amendment ... A year later a Michigan-based militia steeped in the craziest conspiracy theories ...

The attached links serve only as a point of information for those who may consider reading such articles should one have access to the internet while performing their daily business. The poster of such links does not expressly render any opinion on the posted subject matter/links (GOT THAT DOC- try to control yourself).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
growalot Newbie

growalot

Posted
Posted
he asserted that "the Stuart Kings Charles II and James II succeeded in using select militias loyal to them to suppress political dissidents, in part by disarming their opponents." This line of reasoning ignores the fact that, in 21st century America, the prospect of monarchs and their select militias oppressing the populace is reasonably remote. It also ignores the fact that the common law evolves and is subordinate to acts of the legislature. Other nations built on English common law have all enacted strict regulation of gun ownership, with no perceptible diminution of political liberties.

Didn't that statement just leap right over WWII?

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Experienced

Doc

Posted
Posted

The attached links serve only as a point of information for those who may consider reading such articles should one have access to the internet while performing their daily business. The poster of such links does not expressly render any opinion on the posted subject matter/links (GOT THAT DOC- try to control yourself).

No problem there .... I've finally figured out that you are simply a troll that gets some kind of weird kick out of coming on here, plunking down your playlist of favorite anti-gun/liberal links just to see what kinds of reactions you can stir up. So I just take them for what they are and don't even bother accessing them. Your little disclaimer really should be updated to reflect the truth. We all know what you are. You've shown your stripes here just a few too many times to offer up that line.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
wztirem Newbie

wztirem

Posted
  • Author
Posted

No problem there .... I've finally figured out that you are simply a troll that gets some kind of weird kick out of coming on here, plunking down your playlist of favorite anti-gun/liberal links just to see what kinds of reactions you can stir up. So I just take them for what they are and don't even bother accessing them. Your little disclaimer really should be updated to reflect the truth. We all know what you are. You've shown your stripes here just a few too many times to offer up that line.

Obviously you do have a problem with anyone posting anything for intelligent consideration.Your response to my post speaks for itself!.With every issue both sides require consideration. I respect everyone's opinion and you yourself should as a moderator (sic) should do the same.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Doc Experienced

Doc

Posted
Posted

Obviously you do have a problem with anyone posting anything for intelligent consideration.Your response to my post speaks for itself!.With every issue both sides require consideration. I respect everyone's opinion and you yourself should as a moderator (sic) should do the same.

Sorry, I just have a dislike for trolls and their mentality.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nyantler Apprentice

nyantler

Posted
Posted (edited)

Obviously you do have a problem with anyone posting anything for intelligent consideration.Your response to my post speaks for itself!.With every issue both sides require consideration. I respect everyone's opinion and you yourself should as a moderator (sic) should do the same.

I'd be curious to know where the "intelligent" part is... I fail to respect any individual that uses misinformation to get their point across or as a defense of something they know little about...

Edited by nyantler
Link to comment
Share on other sites
erussell Newbie

erussell

Posted
Posted (edited)

Obviously you do have a problem with anyone posting anything for intelligent consideration.Your response to my post speaks for itself!.With every issue both sides require consideration. I respect everyone's opinion and you yourself should as a moderator (sic) should do the same.

There is no issue to consider!!! The constitution protects the right to bear arms. End of consideration.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

This toilet drivel you have posted is not even worthy to wipe my arse with. Its nothing more than socialist, leftist, propaganda!!! You commies can call yourselves progressives but your still commies. you can dress a prostitute up in a bussiness suite but she's still a prostitute.

Edited by erussell
  • Like 3
Link to comment
Share on other sites
nyantler Apprentice

nyantler

Posted
Posted

LOL.. a more absurd list (with many more people on the list) would be the list of people that believe any of the new "hop on the bandwagon and feel good" gun control ideas will actually make people safer. The gun debate need never go beyond the fact that they don't and never have made people safer... after that fact all other points become mute.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
erussell Newbie

erussell

Posted
Posted

Glad I just joined the YMCA and not the YWCA. :biggrin: I know half the guys at the Y are packin heat. I find it most interesting that half the list that they listed are socially conservative groups. And I find it funny the NAACP doesnt like guns when half there members are x gangbangers who have probably murdered atleast one person with a gun over drugs in there life time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
josephmrtn Enthusiast

josephmrtn

Posted
Posted

There is no issue to consider!!! The constitution protects the right to bear arms. End of consideration.

In 2008 and 2010, the Supreme Court issued two landmark decisions officially establishing this interpretation. In District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment protects an individual's right to possess a firearm, unconnected to service in a militia[1][2] and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home within many longstanding prohibitions and restrictions on firearms possession listed by the Court as being consistent with the Second Amendment.[3] In McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U.S. 3025 (2010), the Court ruled that the Second Amendment limits state and local governments to the same extent that it limits the federal government.[4]

This toilet drivel you have posted is not even worthy to wipe my arse with. Its nothing more than socialist, leftist, propaganda!!! You commies can call yourselves progressives but your still commies. you can dress a prostitute up in a bussiness suite but she's still a prostitute.

+100

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...