I don't have the answers in terms of how to keep the mass flow of guns out of the hands of the sinister. I don't think anyone here has the answer either from what I have seen. What I will say is that leaving things as they currently are, is clearly not the answer either. I'm afraid that this will all be left to solve itself. But it will eventually solve itself, and folks may not be happy what that looks like.
POLITICAL THREAD
- Thread starter kybobcat
- Start date
Non sequitur fail. There is no 'right to an abortion' in the Constitution. Also your whiny voice is noted. And thanks for admitting that your opinion is bogus because the SCOTUS deemed it so. You're dismissed. I assume by your assertion that YOU will never mention the 2A again, right?
So you think grown ass "women" with a penis and set of balls should be able to occupy the same restroom as an 8 year old actual biological female child.
There are over 20,000 federal gun laws on the books. How's it working out so far?
Oh, he believes that all right. He's a paid troll.
Liberals: If you ban abortions people will just find other ways to have them or get them illegally.
Also liberals: If we can ban guns or certain types of guns it will stop the gun violence problem.
Also liberals: If we can ban guns or certain types of guns it will stop the gun violence problem.
Of all the people on this board you are attempting to lecture on comma usage? You misplace your commas a word late every single time. "I would write sentences like warrior but, I don't know how to use commas." LOL.
Healthcare and health insurance are two different things.
There is already a mechanism for free healthcare. Most hospitals and medical clinics operate as nonprofits, escaping untold amounts of tax. They are supposed to see people regardless of ability to pay. They refuse, yet their non profit status remains.
Fix that and you fix the healthcare concern.
Of course as we see with covid outcome disparities, the issue was never really cost anyway. Covid treatment and vaccines are free, yet minorities refuse both. So even when costs are free we have disparate outcomes because people are different in when/if they seek care.
So 1) there is no such thing as achievable equity 2) cost was never the gatekeeper issue 3) on the occasion that it is, a system is in place to address it. It just needs to be enforced.
Solved the healthcare problem. You're welcome
False, Oklahoma has some and they actually train once a month. Title 44 in Oklahoma law allows for it. It governs organized and unorganized militias.
Other states have similar Titles regarding militias.
Last edited:
He don’t who the Cong was, you expect him to understand this?
Not well. Not well at all. My post is NOT insinuating that there be more laws. Like I said, I don't have the answers but it is clear that neither does anyone else here and things as they are, it doesn't work. There will eventually be a consequence to leaving such a problem unattended. I'm curious to see what that will be.
They hate us all and they hate this country.
It’s always overwhelmingly blacks or gays who do this activism.
This is your response? So, you agree that the comma placement does mean what I said it means in relation to the 2nd amendment which suggest you were being disingenuous with your post or just trying to mislead. Typical liberal lie as usual.
Last edited:
There's as much of one as there is an unfettered 'right to bear arms'. So do you think the 2nd guarantees you the legal right to a nuke? The 2nd reads: "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." Nukes are arms.
You forgot a comma after the word 'board.'
I appreciate you being open minded on this. I'll leave you with a quote from a famous writer, L. Neil Smith:
"In a free society, both good and evil exist. In a tyranny, only evil exists."
Thats also your opinion, as if the entire miltary would join lockstep in "obliterating" its citizens.
There's a reason the 2A was added to the Constitution, people that had lived under a tyrannical govt knew that an armed populace would give any future leaders pause if they got power hungry.
No, I disagree. The comma placement is that of a dependent clause. Was just pointing out that you personally have absolutely no credibility whatsoever on the subject of commas. You can't even handle them in your own posts.
Sigma Phi has the sickest vaccine parties, bruh!
Oh, and all that requires an ID.
Neither are flintlocks or any other specific type but "arms" covers the whole lot.
Last edited:
And there you go. Typical straw man, every single liberal who argues against the 2nd always resorts to the 'nuke' argument. You strain at a gnat while swallowing the camel. You probably think an AR15 uses autoclips, too.
Correct your straw man and we'll have a conversation. As of right now, you're acting like a bot, and bots don't argue in good faith.
To answer your question, however, no I don't believe we should own nukes in our garages. We have the right to own military grade rifles, though. On the other hand, arresting someone for using a 3D printer to make a one shot pistol out of plastic is extreme on the other end, wouldn't you agree?
"NUH UH, THE 2A WAS FOR HUNTING!" - Idiot lefties
False, we fought there to prove to communist China and Russia that we were prepared to meet them on any battle field and were ready to sacrifice our people lives to do it.
Last edited:
Trolling, trolling, trolling, rawhide...
Alright so what's your legal argument for banning nuclear arms? The 2nd Amendment clearly states the right to own arms shall not be infringed.
FYI, the 2A WAS MANIFESTLY for citizens to protect themselves against a tyrannical government.
As James Madison, a Founding Father and the fourth President of the United States wrote in Federalist 46, the sole purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure the people would have the power to defend themselves against a tyrannical government by protecting the right to bear arms.
As James Madison, a Founding Father and the fourth President of the United States wrote in Federalist 46, the sole purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure the people would have the power to defend themselves against a tyrannical government by protecting the right to bear arms.
Gun violence is overwhelmingly a Democrat problem by Democrats in Democrat-cities where criminals ignore Democrat gun control laws.
Usually. They have to verify identity to maintain emrs and to ensure compliance with hipaa.
However if someone arrives on their doorstep needing medical care, they're supposed to treat them whether they can identify themselves at all. Even if it's a John or Jane doe
I am getting board with his lack of understanding and lack of knowledge of the subject matter at hand.
Yes, I know, I misspelled bored just for him.
After the 2nd child if they don't work (and have no disability) to provide for the kids they should be forced to get sterilized. No one should be allowed to just keep popping out kids that they refuse to financially take care of. It's not the responsibility of others to take care of your kids when you are perfectly capable of doing it yourself.
If you are actually out there working and not just being a baby making machine then I have no problem with you getting some assistance to help you get by. No more free handouts though. Welfare should be used primarily for the disabled and senior citizens.
False. Your attempt at deflection after being proven wrong (again), will not work. It never does.
Many in the military are for the 2nd Amendment and would join the militias because their families would be the biggest targets of the government.
Exactly, as they were responsible for more deaths and damage.
Similar threads
