Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

"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."

http://youtu.be/jkt_b5vc1tk

Is this what America wants?

Originally posted by It's xyz!
"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."

jkt_b5vc1tk

Is this what America wants?

If she does this I don't want her secret service being allowed guns.

We already know that she thinks the Supreme Court is wrong on the second amendment and she is coming for the guns.

http://freebeacon.com/politics/leaked-audio-clinton-says-supreme-court-is-wrong-on-second-amendment/

Listen to the audio but here is her quote..

Oh they definitely will.

Everyone should be equipped with nerf weapons. I have some the government can borrow.

Lol, how dare the foundations of a country forming be wrong.

Bye America, it was nice knowing you.

Just picture this, but man sized:

http://www.truthrevolt.org/sites/default/files/images/nerf%20876%20car.jpg

I can just imagine myself shooting Vietcong with that.

I would shoot Hilary with that.

I could of ended WW2 by throwing a bunch of those baby's at the nazi's.

Plus once I run out of baby's I still have the cool nerf Jeep and gun thing.

Lovely how people ignore the "well-regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment.

That nerd jeep would be great against zogs.

Well, technically, it is well regulated. It's super regulated and has business all over e world! Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lovely how people ignore the "well-regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lovely how people ignore the "well-regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment.

Who's ignoring it besides you?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Who's ignoring it besides you?

Do you own guns, TI?

Stack up on nukes bro.

And are you part of a well regulated militia?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
Lovely how people ignore the "well-regulated militia" part of the Second Amendment.

Ohhhh I see what he did there.

He took part of a sentence and used it OUT OF CONTEXT!!!

wZrcR3guGG0

How would our Govt like it if everyone that had firearms formed militias in their states so that they could keep their guns? I could only imagine the meltdown and conflicts that would create.

Seriously though Murika loves its guns more then it loves fast food, probably to much.

a lot of people do have gun obsessions but there is nothing wrong with having a couple weapons for home protection.

Guns will never be banned in the US.

Any talk about regulations/restrictions is academic, as this isn't an either/or proposition like abortion rights, and states vary drastically on the subject. But a country wide bannings simply not gonna happen.

that's just speculation.

Originally posted by snowdragon
How would our Govt like it if everyone that had firearms formed militias in their states so that they could keep their guns? I could only imagine the meltdown and conflicts that would create.

Seriously though Murika loves its guns more then it loves fast food, probably to much.

Guns kill less people then Big Macs and Whoppers do.


Its fact.

Look it up.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Guns kill less people then Big Macs and Whoppers do.


Its fact.

Look it up.

what kind of ammunition does a big mac use

Secret Service Sauce

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Secret Service Sauce
Wrong. It uses Chipotle sauce that makes you bleed out your ass and die.

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Wrong. It uses Chipotle sauce that makes you bleed out your ass and die.

Wrong Franchise Fat boy.


https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2781191162/b8c62eb1c271f88b8791f162adfb3a0b_400x400.jpeg

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Wrong Franchise Fat boy.


https://pbs.twimg.com/profile_images/2781191162/b8c62eb1c271f88b8791f162adfb3a0b_400x400.jpeg
Don't you EVER call me fat. I am big boned, get it!? BIG BONED!

That aint what yer "GirlFriend" says....

Originally posted by Flyattractor
That aint what yer "GirlFriend" says....
https://41.media.tumblr.com/cf2cea3094bb78558357d516476797c4/tumblr_o1wfefssL51v77et6o1_400.png

There is nothing wrong with owning guns.

It's how they're used and portrayed in the media.

The NRA aren't the ones committing mass shootings.

Some people just shouldn't have guns or shouldn't be around guns. Like this woman who got killed by her 2 yr. old kid. I guess her boyfriend is a security guard and would keep his gun in the car. The womans family were constantly telling her to make sure she is never driving with that gun in the car and her child. Well..does she listen? Nope, and now she's dead because the kid accidentally shot her:

d3EPgB2wTWI

I don't want to ban guns, I just wish some kind of training was required in order to own them. I think perhaps when you train with one and really see and feel what it can do..you will be more likely to take it seriously and keep it secure.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
There is nothing wrong with owning guns.

It's how they're used and portrayed in the media.

The NRA aren't the ones committing mass shootings.
But they keep refusing to acknowledge that these mass shootings are a serious problem, and their "solution" to mass shootings is more guns and more armed people. They even have the gall to suggest elementary school rooms, churches, and every other public place should have armed guards at all times, as if the country is a war zone or something. They refuse to even countenance the possibility that we might be safer if we had fewer guns.

I don't think the problem is necessarily gun ownership, the problem is gun supply. There are too many guns and it's too easy for criminals and crazies to get them.

Originally posted by jaden101
And are you part of a well regulated militia?
He's a TI Militia that's TI-regulated.

Another problem is people aren't exactly consistent with what they want. Like they will cite mass shootings as reasons why these automatic weapons should be banned, because they are used a lot in those. But a majority of crime with guns is done with handguns.

Maybe one day we will be able to create technology that allows only the legal owner of the gun to fire it..like some kind of fingerprint thing or something. So if someone else who isn't you and doesn't match your prints they can't use it.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
He's a TI Militia that's TI-regulated.

I would presume that would be the case. But then he is a Walt so will probably say something different.

What is a Walt? Walt Disney? Is...is he still alive? Because I once saw this pretty horrifying episode of Robot Chicken that delved into what would happen if that was the case.

Originally posted by Surtur
What is a Walt? Walt Disney? Is...is he still alive? Because I once saw this pretty horrifying episode of Robot Chicken that delved into what would happen if that was the case.

Walter Mitty.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
But they keep refusing to acknowledge that these mass shootings are a serious problem, and their "solution" to mass shootings is more guns and more armed people. They even have the gall to suggest elementary school rooms, churches, and every other public place should have armed guards at all times, as if the country is a war zone or something. They refuse to even countenance the possibility that we might be safer if we had fewer guns.

I don't think the problem is necessarily gun ownership, the problem is gun supply. There are too many guns and it's too easy for criminals and crazies to get them. I think the real problem is people aren't properly listening to the NRA and taking their sentiments out of context.

I used to think, lol guns in elementary schools how dumb. But I think it was more the principle than actually arming teachers. The principle being, if you are around guns and understand them, then you understand the dangers. You understand how to use them and you understand how to avoid them.

Schools is a weird one though. My idea is issue bullet proof vests, but I forget American culture is super competitive.

Every state should have a militia. These militias will prevent gun violence because, who would want to **** with the militia?

No. Illegal gun crime lords at the docks will sell the non handprint guns. Shit, I bet you could make your own gun if you really wanted. Originally posted by Surtur
Another problem is people aren't exactly consistent with what they want. Like they will cite mass shootings as reasons why these automatic weapons should be banned, because they are used a lot in those. But a majority of crime with guns is done with handguns.

Maybe one day we will be able to create technology that allows only the legal owner of the gun to fire it..like some kind of fingerprint thing or something. So if someone else who isn't you and doesn't match your prints they can't use it.

Originally posted by jaden101
I would presume that would be the case. But then he is a Walt so will probably say something different.

People like you is why we left Britian, and then when you came to get us back, we beat you again and again.

I hope Trump cuts ties with your country, we dont need your stupid country dragging us down. After all you guys want to kick people after two years who can't speak english.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
He's a TI Militia that's TI-regulated.

People like you who cannot read property and separate different subjects in the same sentence is the reason why we have stupid debates about the second amendment. Point out where it says citizens do not have the right bear arms?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
People like you is why we left Britian, and then when you came to get us back, we beat you again and again.

I hope Trump cuts ties with your country, we dont need your stupid country dragging us down. After all you guys want to kick people after two years who can't speak english.

You don't need anyone dragging you down. Your country is doing a brilliant job of that itself.

Still haven't answered my question though. Telling.

We are doing far better then you are. And always will be. You will always be in our shadow and owe us a debt eternally for bailing you out of WW1 and WW2.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Guns kill less people then Big Macs and Whoppers do.


Its fact.

Look it up.

I've never seen a crime scene where people were big mac'd or whoppered to death either.

Neither of those change the fact that in the USA, we are hungry for guns.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
We are doing far better then you are. And always will be. You will always be in our shadow and owe us a debt eternally for bailing you out of WW1 and WW2.

Good to see you showing your ignorance of history again.

Good to see you denying history again, I can tell your so mad about America being greater then your failing country. Pretty soon you will be taken over by Islam and out of the EU and no ties with America and buying oil from Putin.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Good to see you denying history again, I can tell your so mad about America being greater then your failing country. Pretty soon you will be taken over by Islam and out of the EU and no ties with America and buying oil from Putin.

As ignorant of current affairs as you are of history. Not surprising given you can barely string a coherent sentence together.

Your country is in ruin, you elect Islamic mayors but your PM wants kick out people who can't speak english within two years.

I defecated in public in England once. Was waving one of those little American flags while doing it. in the middle of a street right in front of a cop

Good times

Thats cause thats how they evolved. They used to dump shit on the street.

Isn't there a law against it tho? Nobody said anything to me. It was quite an experience.

British people will hit you from behind when walking down the street, for no reason mind you, and there its ok for them to pick on Americans.

I'm not from England or live in England. Nice try though.

Sure we believe you. Nice try though, as you already told me you lived in UK. So your either lying then or lying now, either way, you are a liar, just like Hilary.

Ignorance of geography added to the list of your mental deficiencies.

Originally posted by jaden101
I'm not from England or live in England. Nice try though.

I thought you were in the us. Just saying what I did in England. Did it in Kuwait too. I wussed out in s. Korea tho. you will get beat there. I have lots of respect for them

Originally posted by jaden101
Ignorance of geography added to the list of your mental deficiencies.

Much like you, I guess you cant keep your story straight to save your life. Been eating to much?

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Much like you, I guess you cant keep your story straight to save your life. Been eating to much?

Can't even spell "too" correctly.

Brilliant.

Originally posted by Raisen
I thought you were in the us. Just saying what I did in England. Did it in Kuwait too. I wussed out in s. Korea tho. you will get beat there. I have lots of respect for them

Nope. Fat Albert is from South Philly though so you're not the first to make that mistake.

Whatever you say, peeping tom.

Oh dear. Walt is upset.

Must be frustration at being unable to express himself adequately.

Originally posted by jaden101
You don't need anyone dragging you down. Your country is doing a brilliant job of that itself.



Im not upset, you mad. Look everyone its Fat Albert

No one says "your country" and then claims he lives there. Your attempt to get around your lie is hilarious.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
No one says "your country" and then claims he lives there. Your attempt to get around your lie is hilarious.

Oh dear. I've explained it several times to you and you still don't grasp it. I pity you, TI. It really is sad.

Originally posted by jaden101
Oh dear. I've explained it several times to you and you still don't grasp it. I pity you, TI. It really is sad.

I pity you, Big mouth, small man, Fatty.

Everyone cease with the dick waving, please, and back to topic.

Ok, but he started it by going off topic with insults

Originally posted by Omega Vision
He's a TI Militia that's TI-regulated. Originally posted by jaden101
I would presume that would be the case. But then he is a Walt so will probably say something different.
Originally posted by Surtur
What is a Walt? Walt Disney? Is...is he still alive? Because I once saw this pretty horrifying episode of Robot Chicken that delved into what would happen if that was the case.
Originally posted by jaden101
Walter Mitty.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Ok, but he started it by going off topic with insults

Two wrongs do not make a right.

Let's all go back to topic, please.

ok cool

OK. Back to topic it is.

I'll repeat my question

Are you a member of a well regulated militia, TI?

Right, back to the topic. The Second Amendment, however, also states that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Does that mean the people of the well-regulated(how is that defined, anyway?) militia only or the people in general?

Originally posted by ArtificialGlory
Right, back to the topic. The Second Amendment, however, also states that the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed. Does that mean the people of the well-regulated(how is that defined, anyway?) militia only or the people in general?
The way it's written, it suggests that given the need for a "well-regulated militia" (a need which no longer exists), the government won't infringe on the rights to bear arms. But since we don't have well-regulated militias anymore, the original point of the 2nd Amendment is moot and it's become a matter of tradition.

http://www.incrediblethings.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/Bears-arms-2.jpg

Originally posted by Omega Vision
The way it's written, it suggests that given the need for a "well-regulated militia" (a need which no longer exists), the government won't infringe on the rights to bear arms. But since we don't have well-regulated militias anymore, the original point of the 2nd Amendment is moot and it's become a matter of tradition.
So I assume 'well-regulated militia' simply became the Military? At any rate, I seriously don't like the vagueness in what is considered such a supremely important document as the Constitution. I mean, yeah, you can make a point that the right to bear arms only concerns a well-regulated militia, but the Supreme Court obviously disagrees.

http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Understanding well-regulated.

Google definition of militia
militia
mɪˈlɪʃə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
"creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
(in the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

You could interpret it as a military, but it's not technically the same as say, the army.

It is an organised army of the people to rise against the government should they need to fight against a tyranny the oppose. It was seen as a necessity because they literally just fought and declared independence against England and felt such a thing was a right of the people, given its effectiveness in forming the ****ing country.

This constitutional amendment is relevant to understanding the war of independence, 1812, Andrew jack sons presidency, the civil war and the NRA do believe that should the time come to rise against government, they shall be prepared (at least initially).

It's about standing up to your masters. It's about having the freedom to defend your principles. It is a right TO HAVE a well regulated militia against the government if people are so inclined, the right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed.

The Oklahoma bombers, although criminal terrorists, were excersising their constitutional rights as free Americans to bear arms. George Washington bore arms to create the ****ing country. It is a right to say no to the government, and to ensure a government is subject to the people.

Similar principles were discussed in the French Revolution.

The Thai people often have military coups to overthrow government.

This right to overthrow government is what is really at stake here.

Originally posted by It's xyz!
http://www.constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Understanding well-regulated.

Google definition of militia
militia
mɪˈlɪʃə/
noun
a military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency.
"creating a militia was no answer to the army's manpower problem"
a military force that engages in rebel or terrorist activities in opposition to a regular army.
(in the US) all able-bodied civilians eligible by law for military service.

You could interpret it as a military, but it's not technically the same as say, the army.

It is an organised army of the people to rise against the government should they need to fight against a tyranny the oppose. It was seen as a necessity because they literally just fought and declared independence against England and felt such a thing was a right of the people, given its effectiveness in forming the ****ing country.

This constitutional amendment is relevant to understanding the war of independence, 1812, Andrew jack sons presidency, the civil war and the NRA do believe that should the time come to rise against government, they shall be prepared (at least initially).

It's about standing up to your masters. It's about having the freedom to defend your principles. It is a right TO HAVE a well regulated militia against the government if people are so inclined, the right to bear arms shall NOT be infringed.

The Oklahoma bombers, although criminal terrorists, were excersising their constitutional rights as free Americans to bear arms. George Washington bore arms to create the ****ing country. It is a right to say no to the government, and to ensure a government is subject to the people.

Similar principles were discussed in the French Revolution.

The Thai people often have military coups to overthrow government.

This right to overthrow government is what is really at stake here.
You're dreaming if you think private gunowners would have a prayer against the US military if push came to shove. That's the most easily refutable (and stupid) argument for gun ownership.

In order for the American people to be able to forcibly overthrow the government (which goes against democratic principles in any case), they'd need rocket launchers, anti-aircraft weapons, maybe even an air force. The Syrian military isn't 1/50th the military that the US is and they're still standing after years of battle.

And anyway, that wasn't the meaning of "well-regulated militia" in the first place. It actually referred to the sort of forces that would have been used to crush rebellions and uprisings, controlled by the government, as happened in the Whiskey Rebellion where George Washington shut down an incipient rebellion.

Neither of the arguments work.

If you think your government will turn tyrannical and the military will follow their orders then a population armed with assault rifles would have zero hope against the US military so why bother having them?

And if you believe that even if the government wanted to forcefully subjugate the population to whatever end but the majority of the armed forces would not carry out those orders and instead would overthrow a government making any such attempt then you don't need them in that scenario either.

Originally posted by jaden101
Neither of the arguments work.

If you think your government will turn tyrannical and the military will follow their orders then a population armed with assault rifles would have zero hope against the US military so why bother having them?

And if you believe that even if the government wanted to forcefully subjugate the population to whatever end but the majority of the armed forces would not carry out those orders and instead would overthrow a government making any such attempt then you don't need them in that scenario either.

This is a more true statement. Much of the military would defect

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You're dreaming if you think private gunowners would have a prayer against the US military if push came to shove. That's the most easily refutable (and stupid) argument for gun ownership.

In order for the American people to be able to forcibly overthrow the government (which goes against democratic principles in any case), they'd need rocket launchers, anti-aircraft weapons, maybe even an air force. The Syrian military isn't 1/50th the military that the US is and they're still standing after years of battle.

And anyway, that wasn't the meaning of "well-regulated militia" in the first place. It actually referred to the sort of forces that would have been used to crush rebellions and uprisings, controlled by the government, as happened in the Whiskey Rebellion where George Washington shut down an incipient rebellion.

This would only be an issue of the Military joined the Liberal Socialists who want to turn this country into a Dictatorship....

And I already posted a link to a vid that points how where Meggy is going WRONG on his view of the 2nd amendment, and I don't seem to see any response to that...


not surprised.

Originally posted by Omega Vision
He's a TI Militia that's TI-regulated.

You still dont get it..

Lets break it down barney style for you liberals.

"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."


"A well regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free State,

The right of the people to keep and bear arms."



Is it not common sense that these are two separate rights?

Originally posted by Omega Vision
You're dreaming if you think private gunowners would have a prayer against the US military if push came to shove. That's the most easily refutable (and stupid) argument for gun ownership.

In order for the American people to be able to forcibly overthrow the government (which goes against democratic principles in any case), they'd need rocket launchers, anti-aircraft weapons, maybe even an air force. The Syrian military isn't 1/50th the military that the US is and they're still standing after years of battle.

And anyway, that wasn't the meaning of "well-regulated militia" in the first place. It actually referred to the sort of forces that would have been used to crush rebellions and uprisings, controlled by the government, as happened in the Whiskey Rebellion where George Washington shut down an incipient rebellion. Hey I like Jim Jeffries too! Lol.

You actually don't realise that most gun owners are former servicemen and the military is made up of ordinary American citizens. I don't know what world you live in where citizens of the military will engage in every action of the military, but generally speaking, if a military were to turn against its own citizens, most of the military would defect. I'd rather these defectors had the help of ordinary citizens instead of criminals, just saying.

>easily refutable, kek.

Lol, Syria is getting help from Russia and that whole situation is a cluster **** anyway. Let's focus on the us military. You know who runs it? US citizens. You know who operates the rocket launchers and machinery? That's right, US citizens. There will be loyalists and defectors just with any civil war, but it's not as if the US has no chance against its government, nor is that an argument to disarm the people even more! Its an argument for less restriction.

>we will never win against the us military, so let's give up our right to bear arms!

The right to bear arms shall not be infringed!

Originally posted by Omega Vision
(which goes against democratic principles in any case)

But as a country don't we do a lot of things that go against democratic principles?



I will say I don't think we should ban all guns, but I do find it problematic when any country clings to these laws or principles that were created centuries ago. Some of these things will still hold up no matter how much time passes. Others though can definitely take on different meanings as opposed to what they were meant for centuries ago.

Originally posted by Surtur
But as a country don't we do a lot of things that go against democratic principles?
That's ok seeing as how this isn't really a Democratic nation but a Republic.

originally posted by Surtur
I will say I don't think we should ban all guns, but I do find it problematic when any country clings to these laws or principles that were created centuries ago. Some of these things will still hold up no matter how much time passes. Others though can definitely take on different meanings as opposed to what they were meant for centuries ago.

There is also the interpretation that "We The People" are the MILITIA that the Amendment refers to.
Meaning that we are all supposed to be ready and able to both defend and assist in all sorts of situations.

Yes I know for some of our LIBERAL Posters, the thought of them being responsible for physically being able to help others is ANETHMA to them, but still....

Originally posted by Flyattractor
Yes I know for some of our LIBERAL Posters, the thought of them being responsible for physically being able to help others is ANETHMA to them, but still....

This reminds me of the series finale for Seinfeld where they get arrested for not helping out a guy who they saw getting mugged.

Originally posted by Flyattractor
There is also the interpretation that "We The People" are the MILITIA that the Amendment refers to.
Meaning that we are all supposed to be ready and able to both defend and assist in all sorts of situations.

You're forgetting that the militia is supposed to be "well regulated", meaning it's not just a bunch of people with guns doing whatever they want. Words are important.

Originally posted by Surtur
This reminds me of the series finale for Seinfeld where they get arrested for not helping out a guy who they saw getting mugged.

Worst part about that episode was that we didn't get to see Elaine was getting up to in Woman's prison.

Originally posted by Robtard
You're forgetting that the militia is supposed to be "well regulated", meaning it's not just a bunch of people with guns doing whatever they want. Words are important.

You still dont get it..

Lets break it down barney style for you liberals.

"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."


"A well regulated milita, being necessary to the security of a free State,

The right of the people to keep and bear arms."



Is it not common sense that these are two separate rights?

In order for there to be a "militia", people must be free to "bear arms". Doesn't do away with said "militia" and by default "arms" being "well regulated".

It's clear what the forefathers wanted and it wasn't gun laws so relaxed that any criminal or insane person can walk into a gun show and walk away with an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds.

You really have no cue what the framers intented.

The Supreme court backed the framers.

Framers>Supreme court ruling (District of Columbia v. Heller)>>>>>>x9000 Rob's liberal opinion.

The framers did not intend open borders Rob.

https://youtu.be/1GNu7ldL1LM

Historically speaking, they were criminal insane people who killed the loyalists with those powder guns. Originally posted by Robtard
In order for there to be a "militia", people must be free to "bear arms". Doesn't do away with said "militia" and by default "arms" being "well regulated".

It's clear what the forefathers wanted and it wasn't gun laws so relaxed that any criminal or insane person can walk into a gun show and walk away with an assault rifle and hundreds of rounds.

Historically speaking, the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.

Seems there was some fixing after the fact.

Seems you don't understand intentions of the right after having Penn Jillette explain it you and you're clutching at straws. Originally posted by Robtard
Historically speaking, the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.

Seems there was some fixing after the fact.

Originally posted by Robtard
Historically speaking, the Revolutionary War ended in 1783, the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791.

Seems there was some fixing after the fact.

Framers>Supreme court>you and history.

SC held up the second amendment for what it says, whether you like it or not.

Which well regulated militia are you a part of?

SC held up the second amendment for private citizens to bear arms. Whether you like it or not.

I support private citizen gun ownership

You're doing that thing again where you see "smart gun regulation" and translate it as "they want to take all our guns!"

Originally posted by It's xyz!
https://youtu.be/1GNu7ldL1LM

Originally posted by Robtard
I support private citizen gun ownership

You're doing that thing again where you see "smart gun regulation" and translate it as "they want to take all our guns!"

Proof?

Nice moving goal posts after you cannot prove your point.

We've done this before a few times, last time I recall was when you were going on about Obama wanting to take away all your guns and I pointed out that the bill was for gun law reform, not taking away guns flat out, you insisted it was and I said "I don't agree with that", but again, it wasn't about that.

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Proof?

Nice moving goal posts after you cannot prove your point. Robtard tactics:
state claim he read in a liberal opinion piece. Insult the other side. Make ridiculous metaphors and change goal posts after being stumped and change focus to other side. Resort to claiming ignorance on their part. BTFO.

Okay, found it, here's one of the times where I said I don't agree with banning all guns:

Originally posted by Robtard
I don't think Obama wants to get ride of all guns, iirc, he's also for reform, like better background etc. If he is though, I don't agree. Source?


XYZ tries so hard but always fails.

Lol. It started with the interpretation of the right, and now you're saying you don't want to ban all guns. Try to think straight instead of derping.

We haven't even gone back to Hilary's stance yet.

No one interpreted the right as a means to ban all guns, so once again you fail. Just like the other, you see the words "gun regulation" and you kneejerk.

While Hillary will most likely be the next POTUS, you might want to wait until she's actually elected before you flip out over something she says.

ps She's not getting ride of guns either. People have been crying for 7+ years now over Obama's "war on guns/freedom" and you can still easily get guns

Okay, in all seriousness here, Hilary is talking about stricter gun laws to protect the people. The problem being, this will invite guns in illegal marketing.

I could go on and on about the right to bear arms when freedom is taken away, but it appears that happened a looooong time ago.

Regardless, Hilary will go for strict gun laws similar to what is seen in Europe and Australia. Does the USA want this?

Even if the NRA do that, Hilary is the master of spin and will inevitably infringe on gun owners' rights as opposing the government. The criminals aren't the ones who miss out, as I'm sure you understand with drug laws. Gun owners will lose out on arming themselves against tyranny, as has been happening over a long period of time.

Originally posted by Robtard
We've done this before a few times, last time I recall was when you were going on about Obama wanting to take away all your guns and I pointed out that the bill was for gun law reform, not taking away guns flat out, you insisted it was and I said "I don't agree with that", but again, it wasn't about that.

Good so no proof, CA.

You first tried to say the second amendment didn't give private citizens the right to bear arms and now you are back peddaling and moving goal posts and trying to change the subject.

Wont work.

DC vs Heller>your second amendment understanding/opinion..

Originally posted by Time-Immemorial
Good so no proof, CA.

You first tried to say the second amendment didn't give private citizens the right to bear arms and now you are back peddaling and moving goal posts and trying to change the subject.

Wont work.

DC vs Heller>your second amendment understanding/opinion..

Posted.

Strawman.

Just stop.

Stop name dropping things you didn't actually read up on.

Supreme Court>your internet proof.

Read up on DC vs Heller, rtard