Sarah Palin??

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
The right to bear arms is quite important.

It is a good defense of the citizen against the State.

I agree; it should also be within reason though, considering the possibly of the nut-job losing his/her mind and turning said weapons on his/her neighbors.

There's really no need for a private citizen to own a fully automatic machine gun or .50 caliber rifle with armour piercing capabilities, sure you can argue that he/she could need this to repel an unlawful government aggression, but logically, there's no need.

Originally posted by KidRock
So people hate on Palin for her lack of exprience..what about Obama? Palin isnt runnign for president, Obama is, and he has less experience then this VP candidate that people criticize..thats sad.

Mr. Obama has plenty of experience, but when his credentials are mentioned, folks on your side of the aisle mock him. Being community organizer, graduating from Harvard, 3 years in the senate. How much experience did Mr. Bush have when he ran for president? Just about as much as Mrs Palin, and look at the disaster that's brought us. But I honestly think that the experience issue should be off the table for all four of these people. None of them have ever been president of the United Sates, so what must truly be examined is their intelligence and their ability to handle situations. And if we were to get into that debate, Mr. McCain and Frau Palin would soundly loose, just like they are in the polls. Although, I'm sure you were staunchly opposed to the war of northern aggression. But the country made it through that with a man at the helm that had pretty much the same experience as Mr. Obama.

Originally posted by KidRock
We have a National Healthcare Service? News to me. And wrong about the national guard, Obama specifically said other then the military..please feel free to figure out for me what security force is as powerful and well funded as the military is..because Obama wants to create it. How much money do we spend on the military? I dont approve of private military contractors policing my neighborhood.

We have a national healthcare infrastructure, now we need to give everyone access to it. Correct, other than the military, like the peace corps. You don't support private military forces policing your neighbourhood, but you're kind of cool with American private military forces policing neighbourhoods in other countries. One of the issues Mr. Obama had with Iraq was the massive number of checks that were mailed out to private contrators, like Blackwater, who Mr. Bush dispatched to New Orleans after Katrina. Which party makes use of private armies? Let me guess, those black devils deserved to have a shotgun rammed up their ass, right?

Originally posted by KidRock
Plenty of people carry guns for self protection..if you're going to deny this then continue to be a fool. LOL you think only gangbangers and people in the mob carry guns around? Hahaha. How stupid can you be to makea statement "people that carry guns arouund for self protection dont exist"..how dense, honestly.

If so many people carry them, why do I never see them? Why have I never seen them no matter what part of the country I'm in at the moment? Concealed weapons are illegal outside of law enforcement, so either this huge majority of Americans are breaking the law or they don't have guns in their pockets. How many guns do you have with in reaching distance?

Originally posted by KidRock
Yep, Obama didnt sign anything saying he supported banning the manufacturing and sale of guns. Keep your eyes closed rocking in the corner "Nope, Nope, Nope, it cant be true!" in true Obamabot fashion.

It isn't mindless following, it's simply not logical. A person running for president of either party would sign a law saying it is ilegal to manufacture or sell handguns? It's absurd. Regulating I can see, but banning it? That would be like passing a law saying we had to close the airline industry. Your own link even said that he voted to ban the sale of illegal weapons. You said such a thing is impossible.

Originally posted by KidRock
The free state? Oh that would be the United States, but more specifically my right to protect myself and my property, I understand you must forget sometimes. I haven no reason to stand up now, none of my freedoms or liberties have been violated, I will wait for Obama to come knocking on my door burning the 2nd Amendement in front of my face.

How many weapons did the Branch Davidians have in their compound? How many people rose up to defend them? Oh yeah, they just waited a few years and bombed a federal building in Oklahoma. I believe the vast majority of Americans call those people terrorists. You haven't done anything because you don't have the brass plated balls you pretend you do.

Originally posted by KidRock
Its hilarious how people are so against Bush and his big government, they should be in love with bush if they support Obama and his big government, big spending, high taxes.

Lies. I know someone who is a firm supporter of Mr. Bush. So since Mr. Obama voted for the bailout, I find it funny that you aren't a ssupporter of his, if your logic is sound. And as I said, that's so engrained in Republicans heads that a conversation with you on the internet isn't going to change anything. But I appreciate you finally admiting that Mr. Bush is more a socialist than a republican. It only took you 8 years. Oh, and by the way, that bailout plan was modelled after the plan they used in Europe. You know, all those faggoty socialists over across them waters. I believe Mr. McCain voted in favor of it...and then spent the next week saying it was terrible.

Originally posted by KidRock
Like how you cant come up with an answer to "What does the 2nd amendment mean if you advocate banning handguns andauto/semi-automatic weapons"?

The second amendment means what it means; had Mr. Obama ever said that he supported rounding up every gun in the country and having and old fashioned Nazi burning in the town square, you might have a point. But he said nothing of the sort. He said that it was a matter for the towns to consider as they needed to in order to adequately fulfill their obligation to protect their citizens and that he wasn't going to swoop down as the federal government and contradict them.

http://imagebot.org/debate.jpg

Funniest thing I've seen in a long time.

Originally posted by Grand-Moff-Gav
The right to bear arms is quite important.

It is a good defense of the citizen against the State.

Since the government controls the economy, we'll get the bad weapons they'll get the good.

Besides, I thought the pen is mightier than the sword.

If it comes to the point that we are against the state, I doubt guns are going to help us.

Did MLK and Rosa Parks use guns?

Originally posted by BackFire
http://imagebot.org/debate.jpg

Funniest thing I've seen in a long time.

Really funny too.

Originally posted by Devil King
Mr. Obama has plenty of experience, but when his credentials are mentioned, folks on your side of the aisle mock him. Being community organizer, graduating from Harvard, 3 years in the senate. How much experience did Mr. Bush have when he ran for president? Just about as much as Mrs Palin, and look at the disaster that's brought us. But I honestly think that the experience issue should be off the table for all four of these people. None of them have ever been president of the United Sates, so what must truly be examined is their intelligence and their ability to handle situations. And if we were to get into that debate, Mr. McCain and Frau Palin would soundly loose, just like they are in the polls. Although, I'm sure you were staunchly opposed to the war of northern aggression. But the country made it through that with a man at the helm that had pretty much the same experience as Mr. Obama.

Having to list community organizer first as his list of accomplishments says something alone. And 3 years in the senate isnt exactly anything special..he hasnt even been up for re-election so who knows how the people even feel about him. Being a governor is worth more then being a senator when it comes to experience..at least they know how to manage things and know what the field is like. How do we tell how someone manages situations? Oh yes, by experience and looking into their past..which Hussein (waits for the BLAH BLAH BLAH REAL MATURE! CALLING HIM HUSSEIN!..FRAU PALIN!) doesn't have doesnt have. And intelligence? Being friends with people like Bill Ayers and reverend Wright say something about his intelligence.

Originally posted by Devil King

We have a national healthcare infrastructure, now we need to give everyone access to it. Correct, other than the military, like the peace corps. You don't support private military forces policing your neighbourhood, but you're kind of cool with American private military forces policing neighbourhoods in other countries. One of the issues Mr. Obama had with Iraq was the massive number of checks that were mailed out to private contrators, like Blackwater, who Mr. Bush dispatched to New Orleans after Katrina. Which party makes use of private armies? Let me guess, those black devils deserved to have a shotgun rammed up their ass, right?

Who has access to it already? The poor do..the rich certainly dont use any national healthcare benefits right now. So who else do we need to let have access? And you believe spending 515 billion dollars on the Peace Corp is a good idea? lol...lol.

Originally posted by Devil King

If so many people carry them, why do I never see them? Why have I never seen them no matter what part of the country I'm in at the moment? Concealed weapons are illegal outside of law enforcement, so either this huge majority of Americans are breaking the law or they don't have guns in their pockets. How many guns do you have with in reaching distance?

Concealed weapons are not illegal outside of law enforcement..so you're pretty much wrong there. And the reason you don't see them..because they are..concealed.

Originally posted by Devil King

It isn't mindless following, it's simply not logical. A person running for president of either party would sign a law saying it is ilegal to manufacture or sell handguns? It's absurd. Regulating I can see, but banning it? That would be like passing a law saying we had to close the airline industry. Your own link even said that he voted to ban the sale of illegal weapons. You said such a thing is impossible.

Ask Obama..he is the one that signed a questionarre staying he would SUPPORT the ban of them. I am simply stating what Hussein did.

Originally posted by Devil King

How many weapons did the Branch Davidians have in their compound? How many people rose up to defend them? Oh yeah, they just waited a few years and bombed a federal building in Oklahoma. I believe the vast majority of Americans call those people terrorists. You haven't done anything because you don't have the brass plated balls you pretend you do.

I have no reason to do anything, like I said, nobody like Hussein has come around trying to burn the 2nd amendment in front of my face..or behind my back I should say in his case. And what is the point you're trying to make with the waco siege and oklahoma city bombing? How does that relate to the 2nd amendment?

Originally posted by Devil King

Lies. I know someone who is a firm supporter of Mr. Bush. So since Mr. Obama voted for the bailout, I find it funny that you aren't a ssupporter of his, if your logic is sound. And as I said, that's so engrained in Republicans heads that a conversation with you on the internet isn't going to change anything. But I appreciate you finally admiting that Mr. Bush is more a socialist than a republican. It only took you 8 years. Oh, and by the way, that bailout plan was modelled after the plan they used in Europe. You know, all those faggoty socialists over across them waters. I believe Mr. McCain voted in favor of it...and then spent the next week saying it was terrible.

Unfortunately Bush was put in the position to sign the bailout. Maybe if things such as sub prime mortgage loans werent pushed on banks in the name of "fairness and equality" we wouldnt all be in this shithole. But I suppose the Democrats got their wish, we are all equal now, we all live in a shitty economy together. I support certain aspects of the bailout, but I would much rather see the jackasses that took out loans and foreclosed be dumped out on the streets instead of having to take money out of my pocket to keep their house afloat like that flamer Barney Frank is trying to do. I guess its just a coincidence the shit hit the fan when the Democrats took the majority in congress.

Speaking of Europe...socialism is doing great for them! Iceland just had to nationalize their 3 biggest banks and Britain is on its way to nationalizing theirs as well.

Originally posted by Devil King

The second amendment means what it means; had Mr. Obama ever said that he supported rounding up every gun in the country and having and old fashioned Nazi burning in the town square, you might have a point. But he said nothing of the sort. He said that it was a matter for the towns to consider as they needed to in order to adequately fulfill their obligation to protect their citizens and that he wasn't going to swoop down as the federal government and contradict them.

So why do we have a constitution with a bill of rights if they mean nothing to local and state governments? In theory Obama would support a local banning freedom of protesting if the government felt it was necessary for some reason? And again..he said nothing of the sort..he just signs off on things supporting it all while saying no no no.

KidCan'tMakeApoint,

If that Ayers and Wright business is what scares you about Obama, this should make you shit your already brown-stained shorts.

Exposed! McCain's Own Ties to Radicals: Contras, Death Squads and the Moonies

The GOP Presidential Nominee, in 1980s, Sat on Advisory Board of U.S. Chapter of Far Right-Wing World Anti-Communist League Implicated in Iran-Contra Scandal, Linked to Death Squads in Latin America and Bankrolled by Billionaire Leader of Unification Church Who Served Time in Federal Prison for Income Tax Evasion

His campaign has been hammering away at Barack Obama for days over his relationship with former 1960s radical William Ayres, but John McCain has some past radical connections of his own. In the 1980s, McCain sat on the advisory committee of the U.S. Council for World Freedom, founded by retired U.S. Army Major General John Singlaub (pictured at left), who later headed its parent organization, the far-right World Anti-Communist League -- which received heavy financial support from billionaire Korean evangelist Reverend Sun Myung Moon. The League's American chapter aided the right-wing Contra rebels of Nicaragua in their insurgency against the leftist Sandinista government of Daniel Ortega. -end snip

-

McCain working with the Moonies, the ****ing MOONIES!? (See, both sides can play silly fear-tactics)

Originally posted by Robtard
KidCan'tMakeApoint,

If that Ayers and Wright business is what scares you about Obama, this should make you shit your already brown-stained shorts.

Exposed! McCain's Own Ties to Radicals: Contras, Death Squads and the Moonies

The GOP Presidential Nominee, in 1980s, Sat on Advisory Board of U.S. Chapter of Far Right-Wing World Anti-Communist League Implicated in Iran-Contra Scandal, Linked to Death Squads in Latin America and Bankrolled by Billionaire Leader of Unification Church Who Served Time in Federal Prison for Income Tax Evasion

His campaign has been hammering away at Barack Obama for days over his relationship with former 1960s radical William Ayres, but John McCain has some past radical connections of his own. In the 1980s, McCain sat on the advisory committee of the U.S. Council for World Freedom, founded by retired U.S. Army Major General John Singlaub (pictured at left), who later headed its parent organization, the far-right World Anti-Communist League -- which received heavy financial support from billionaire Korean evangelist Reverend Sun Myung Moon. The League's American chapter aided the right-wing Contra rebels of Nicaragua in their insurgency against the leftist Sandinista government of Daniel Ortega. -end snip

-

McCain working with the Moonies, the ****ing MOONIES!? (See, both sides can play silly fear-tactics)

Got any other sources of this that I can read..showing McCain was on the board.

edit: So McCain sat on a board of an organization that helped fight communism in Niceragua? Sooo what?

McCain wasnt friends with the guy, mccain wasnt mentored by him, mccain didnt sit and listen to him speak for 20 years then realize..oh, this guy is wrong! then had his kids baptised by the same man.

Who's this Ayers fellow? Haven't heard about this yet.

Originally posted by KidRock
Got any other sources of this that I can read..showing McCain was on the board.

edit: So McCain sat on a board of an organization that helped fight communism in Niceragua? Sooo what?

McCain wasnt friends with the guy, mccain wasnt mentored by him, mccain didnt sit and listen to him speak for 20 years then realize..oh, this guy is wrong! then had his kids baptised by the same man.

Wiki mentions that your boy McCain did indeed sit on the board during the 80's.

"The WACL also enjoyed support from both the Carter and Reagan administrations in the United States, particularly with regard to its role in Central America,[2] and many US Congressmen, most notably 2008 presidential nominee Senator John McCain (R-AZ), [3][4] who sat on the USCWF Board of Directors in the early 1980s. [5][6] , McCain has said previously he resigned from the council in 1984 and asked in 1986 to have his name removed from the group's letterhead."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_League_for_Freedom_and_Democracy

Originally posted by KidRock
Having to list community organizer first as his list of accomplishments says something alone. And 3 years in the senate isnt exactly anything special..he hasnt even been up for re-election so who knows how the people even feel about him. Being a governor is worth more then being a senator when it comes to experience..at least they know how to manage things and know what the field is like. How do we tell how someone manages situations? Oh yes, by experience and looking into their past..which Hussein (waits for the BLAH BLAH BLAH REAL MATURE! CALLING HIM HUSSEIN!..FRAU PALIN!) doesn't have doesnt have. And intelligence? Being friends with people like Bill Ayers and reverend Wright say something about his intelligence.

Having to? He doesn't have to, it was his frist job after leaving Harvard. He's never been up for re-election? So he wasn't a member of a state senate before he ran for another public office? Being a governor implies some measure of good judgeement Thank you Mr. Bush for nailing the coffin lid shut on Mr. Rock's argument. He's done so well his own party is doing their damndest to distance themselves from him. No, by all means, call him Hussein. That just happens to be his name. It also just happens to make no difference to anyone except people like you that are looking at his skin as a deciding factor.

Originally posted by KidRock
Who has access to it already? The poor do..the rich certainly dont use any national healthcare benefits right now. So who else do we need to let have access? And you believe spending 515 billion dollars on the Peace Corp is a good idea? lol...lol.

No rich people get sick? What ass did you pull that out of? If they have healtcare and the poor do not, I can't imagine how you would logically reach the conclusion that only the poor are using it. The poor, I might add, become more poor when they get sick because they're guarenteed healthcare but have no way to pay for it. A single mother from rural Kansas can take her kid to the emergency room for an asthema attack and has to figure out she'll pay for it for the next 5 years. God forbid the kid has another one.

515 Billion dollars?

Originally posted by KidRock
Concealed weapons are not illegal outside of law enforcement..so you're pretty much wrong there. And the reason you don't see them..because they are..concealed.

Sure, if you apply for a special liscense and are approved. You're telling me that this vast unseen majority have all been approved to carry concealed weapons when their only excuse to do so is they might need to defend themselves or their property or find themselves in the middle of a gang war?

Originally posted by KidRock
Ask Obama..he is the one that signed a questionarre staying he would SUPPORT the ban of them. I am simply stating what Hussein did.

He has been asked. And he's never said he intends to come to your house and burn anything.

Originally posted by KidRock
I have no reason to do anything, like I said, nobody like Hussein has come around trying to burn the 2nd amendment in front of my face..or behind my back I should say in his case. And what is the point you're trying to make with the waco siege and oklahoma city bombing? How does that relate to the 2nd amendment?

The point, oh enlightened one, is that those people espoused the same bullshit you're now espousing. Ruby Ridge? All of these examples relate to what you're saying when you claim that the 2nd amendment gives you the right to stockpile weapons. Sadly, they didn't have the benefit of organizations like Blackwater and Republican support when they stockpiled weapons and built private armies with government contract funds.

Originally posted by KidRock
Unfortunately Bush was put in the position to sign the bailout. Maybe if things such as sub prime mortgage loans werent pushed on banks in the name of "fairness and equality" we wouldnt all be in this shithole. But I suppose the Democrats got their wish, we are all equal now, we all live in a shitty economy together. I support certain aspects of the bailout, but I would much rather see the jackasses that took out loans and foreclosed be dumped out on the streets instead of having to take money out of my pocket to keep their house afloat like that flamer Barney Frank is trying to do. I guess its just a coincidence the shit hit the fan when the Democrats took the majority in congress.

Aw, he was put in the position. That's so sad. Sad Clown. Guess what, people just like you are the jackasses. How much does your mortgage cost you every month? Flamer I seriously doubt Barney Frank is a flamer. But you fall back on empty name-calling to prove your point. If you're going to use a term, at least use it in the manner people like you have coined it.

Originally posted by KidRock
Speaking of Europe...socialism is doing great for them! Iceland just had to nationalize their 3 biggest banks and Britain is on its way to nationalizing theirs as well.

Yeah, and you're so outraged that your candidate has decided to vote for it.

Originally posted by KidRock
So why do we have a constitution with a bill of rights if they mean nothing to local and state governments? In theory Obama would support a local banning freedom of protesting if the government felt it was necessary for some reason? And again..he said nothing of the sort..he just signs off on things supporting it all while saying no no no.

"Local" is the word you're leaving out of it. Were the guns banned in DC because the government was saying the people might rise up and overthrow it? No. Again, I don't see you getting up in arms and espousing rhetoric when you have to leave your gun at home when you head for the airport.

Third time, how many guns do you have?

Originally posted by Devil King
Having to? He doesn't have to, it was his frist job after leaving Harvard. He's never been up for re-election? So he wasn't a member of a state senate before he ran for another public office? Being a governor implies some measure of good judgeement Thank you Mr. Bush for nailing the coffin lid shut on Mr. Rock's argument. He's done so well his own party is doing their damndest to distance themselves from him. No, by all means, call him Hussein. That just happens to be his name. It also just happens to make no difference to anyone except people like you that are looking at his skin as a deciding factor.

Yeah, because Regan was a horrible president, he was a governor as well, same with Clinton. But lets just look at Bush and make the judgement that all governors will make horrible presidents, good argument. How is calling him Hussein make his color a deciding factor? It isnt my fault racists like yourself hear the word Hussein and think terrorist then accuse everyone else of thinking in the same twisted logic you do.

Originally posted by Devil King

No rich people get sick? What ass did you pull that out of? If they have healtcare and the poor do not, I can't imagine how you would logically reach the conclusion that only the poor are using it. The poor, I might add, become more poor when they get sick because they're guarenteed healthcare but have no way to pay for it. A single mother from rural Kansas can take her kid to the emergency room for an asthema attack and has to figure out she'll pay for it for the next 5 years. God forbid the kid has another one.

Rich people have their own insurance and can afford it..they don't need other peoples taxes to pay for it. The rich dont need Medicaid or Medicare nor do they use it..these are social programs for the poor.

And the current military budget is 515 billion dollars..Obama said "Just as powerful and JUST AS WELL FUNDED"..so please make the arguement that we should spend 500 billion dollars on the peace corps..Id love to hear it.

Originally posted by Devil King

Sure, if you apply for a special liscense and are approved. You're telling me that this vast unseen majority have all been approved to carry concealed weapons when their only excuse to do so is they might need to defend themselves or their property or find themselves in the middle of a gang war?

Just the ones that want to exercise their 2nd amendment right to do so. See its what makes this country great, people can choose to have those rights and use them. And of course they carry them to protect themselves and their property..sounds like a good enough reason to me.

Originally posted by Devil King

He has been asked. And he's never said he intends to come to your house and burn anything.

He said he supports it. As in if it was put to a vote and the majority democratic congress passed a law banning guns, he would sign off on it instead of vetoing it. I will eagerly await your "no he wont, he said so!" response.

Originally posted by Devil King

The point, oh enlightened one, is that those people espoused the same bullshit you're now espousing. Ruby Ridge? All of these examples relate to what you're saying when you claim that the 2nd amendment gives you the right to stockpile weapons. Sadly, they didn't have the benefit of organizations like Blackwater and Republican support when they stockpiled weapons and built private armies with government contract funds.

So because a group of people stockpile weapons and shoot a place up we should take away the 2nd amendment for all the law biding citizens? It was there right to stockpile all those weapons, it wasnt to go out and kill people though. Are you saying something like Ruby Ridge wouldnt have happened if guns were illegal or had more restrictions?

Originally posted by Devil King

Aw, he was put in the position. That's so sad. Sad Clown. Guess what, people just like you are the jackasses. How much does your mortgage cost you every month? Flamer I seriously doubt Barney Frank is a flamer. But you fall back on empty name-calling to prove your point. If you're going to use a term, at least use it in the manner people like you have coined it.

Well Frank's former boyfriend was a Fannie Mae executive..is flamer not a term for homosexual? And cry more about the insults, FRAU Palin. How are people like me the jackasses? Did I take out a loan when I knew I had shitty credit and couldnt afford it? No, those morons did.

Originally posted by Devil King

Yeah, and you're so outraged that your candidate has decided to vote for it.

Thanks again for giving me another reason to dislike McCain, I appreciate it.

Originally posted by Devil King

"Local" is the word you're leaving out of it. Were the guns banned in DC because the government was saying the people might rise up and overthrow it? No. Again, I don't see you getting up in arms and espousing rhetoric when you have to leave your gun at home when you head for the airport.

A plane isnt my private property that I have a right to defend. My house and my property are. So why do we have a constitution with a bill of rights if they mean nothing to local and state governments?

And as for do I own guns or not? Why is that relevant?

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, because Regan was a horrible president.

Originally posted by lord xyz
Agreed.

your probley a jimmy carter fan, arent you? 😆 😆 😆

http://www.palinaspresident.com/

Originally posted by BackFire
http://www.palinaspresident.com/

Click the red phone.

Originally posted by KidRock
Yeah, because Regan was a horrible president, he was a governor as well, same with Clinton. But lets just look at Bush and make the judgement that all governors will make horrible presidents, good argument. How is calling him Hussein make his color a deciding factor? It isnt my fault racists like yourself hear the word Hussein and think terrorist then accuse everyone else of thinking in the same twisted logic you do.

Ronald Reagan? You mean that hollywood elitist? You mean that president that cut and ran in the middle east? I didn't say that governors made bad presidents. I said that simply because some one was a governor doesn't mean they will make a good president. It is your argument, not mine. Yeah, you call him Hussein just because it's his name. Again, call him Hussein all you like, it's his name.

Originally posted by KidRock
Rich people have their own insurance and can afford it..they don't need other peoples taxes to pay for it. The rich dont need Medicaid or Medicare nor do they use it..these are social programs for the poor.

My grandfather is a fairly wealthy person by today's standards and he has both. The majority of those benefits go to the retired and elderly. He's also none too pleased with Mr. Bush.

Originally posted by KidRock
And the current military budget is 515 billion dollars..Obama said "Just as powerful and JUST AS WELL FUNDED"..so please make the arguement that we should spend 500 billion dollars on the peace corps..Id love to hear it.

As well funded does not mean he wants to spend 515 billion dollars on the peace corps. You're just making shit up now. Don't you support our troops? They hate us for our freedom!

Originally posted by KidRock
Just the ones that want to exercise their 2nd amendment right to do so. See its what makes this country great, people can choose to have those rights and use them. And of course they carry them to protect themselves and their property..sounds like a good enough reason to me.

I'm still not seeing these well-armed and gun-toting, yet safe and law-abiding citizens all over the place. I never have. Apparently, they've decided for themselves not to apply the 2nd amendment to every moment of their lives as you seem to be saying they are.

Originally posted by KidRock
He said he supports it. As in if it was put to a vote and the majority democratic congress passed a law banning guns, he would sign off on it instead of vetoing it. I will eagerly await your "no he wont, he said so!" response.

You don't have to eagerly await it. He said he supported the 2nd amendment in your own link.

Originally posted by KidRock
So because a group of people stockpile weapons and shoot a place up we should take away the 2nd amendment for all the law biding citizens? It was there right to stockpile all those weapons, it wasnt to go out and kill people though. Are you saying something like Ruby Ridge wouldnt have happened if guns were illegal or had more restrictions?

No one has said they will take away the 2nd amendment rights. The do not have the right to stockpile illegal weapons. If we were to consider what the founding father's meant when they said "arms", then we would be talking about powder-loaded muskets with a bayonet on the end of it. A machine gun that sprays 200 bullets a minute was not what they were talking about. Technically those cases happened because their weapons were illegal. But they actually happened because those people were breaking the law. What does someone like Mr. Koresh need with 100 crates of handgrenaids and 200 automatic weapons? Let's not forget these situations escelated out of control. They didn't start with the FBI or ATF rolling up to their compounds in a tank, they ended that way.

Originally posted by KidRock
Well Frank's former boyfriend was a Fannie Mae executive..is flamer not a term for homosexual? And cry more about the insults, FRAU Palin. How are people like me the jackasses? Did I take out a loan when I knew I had shitty credit and couldnt afford it? No, those morons did.

No one has cried. I responded very affably to your cries of terrorist and negro. I seriously doubt anyone here thinks you're not calling him by his middle name as a means to incite your distrust of the negros. Flamer is a term that applies to the blatantly homosexual. Someone wearing pink shorts and rollerskates while they're tossing handfulls of confetti. Mr. Frank is just Bardock gay. People like you are the jackasses because you're not that much different from a lot of the people that accepted the loans. If you knew you had bad credit but the bank convinced you that you could afford it anyway, you are only really guilty of believing the people that are lying to you; people that are representing a financial istitution that most people would believe spoke with some authority on the subject. How much is your mortgage every month?

Originally posted by KidRock
Thanks again for giving me another reason to dislike McCain, I appreciate it.

I didn't give it to you.

Originally posted by KidRock
A plane isnt my private property that I have a right to defend. My house and my property are. So why do we have a constitution with a bill of rights if they mean nothing to local and state governments?

Then as soon as you get to your property line, carry your legal gun around all you want. But a public city street is not your private property.

Originally posted by KidRock
And as for do I own guns or not? Why is that relevant?

Curiosity. You aren't answering beccause you don't own one? You keep claiming that all these people are walking around with a gun in their back pocket to protect themselves, you must be one of them.

Originally posted by KidRock
your probley a jimmy carter fan, arent you? 😆 😆 😆

Originally posted by Robtard
Your logic fails; it fails horribly. People own guns for a variety of reasons besides shooting other people, target shooting and hunting being two of them.

There's also the issue of people having the right to protect themselves, their loved ones and their property, especially in their own homes.

and you are retarted. target shooting and hunting are not large enough necessities to justify the right to bear arms when the negetive consequences{accidental or otherwise} far outweigh the RIGHT of people to shoot animals{even the idea sounds retarted}. whats next? letting people own plastic explosives and nukes, because they have a RIGHT to watch awesome explosions????????? you have to look at consequences first. i dont deny that in a perfect world, people shud have a right to target practice, but then again, in a perfect world, people shud also have the right to watch huge explosion. fact is, this isnt a perfect world and the consequences{to other free citizens} far outweigh the rights of the individual. do you have any idea the number of deaths in the last 50 years in america alone from gun related accidents/violence etc? what about the right of the people who got shot to their lives and the lives of their loved ones and the right for them to not live in fear of these things????????!!!!!!! obviously you dont care much about that.

the defence argument is flawed. only rarely does having a gun in your house help you in practical situations against robbers etc. the probability that youll have it ready and usable, or that infact it will help you SAVE lives in random robberies etc is remote. and there is little evidence to back it up. furthermore, people for the second ammendment are quite often more interested in carrying high caliber/more destructive firearms {e.g. m-16 assault rifles, 50 cal magnums, snipers, shotguns, 45. etc etc} which are not at ALL needed for defence. a 9mm would work better actually. but lets be honest now, DEFENCE is just a ploy used by gun lovers, that isnt the real reason they want guns around, and its silly to fall for such an old trick.

but more important than that, putting in more guns in a community to PROTECT people is akin to putting out flames with gasoline. irrespective of the intentions of the buyer, the more guns the community posesses, the more gun crimes are commited annualy, as well as "accidents". at the end of the day, thats more dead bodies for you, so really which community is SAFER, the one with guns for "protection" or one without guns??? guns just encourage more violence. also, the laws which allow you to shoot at sum1 simply because they are in your PROPERTY{considering how big sum PROPERTIES in the state where guns are popular really are, not considering the house u live in} allow for unnecesary amount of force.

in the end, if SAFETY is an issue, than buy a taser. it is more effective than 9mm and people have no excuse to keep firearms. firearmsshud be confined to the premises of shooting ranges alone, and under strict control not to be taken out into people's hands.

the second ammendment was made a LONG time ago, when america was supposed to endorse the ideology of freedom of live in a wild land. no real police, robbers and rogues aplenty, and the fact of government/military, forcing people all over europe{and other places} to conform to idologies and unfair laws etc. the right to bear arms was the right to empower individuals to stand up for themselves against such forces and be free. that is what the right to bear arms signified. however, it is completely unnecessary and without justification in TODAY'S world.