Duh...I just assume he is way over compensating for something.
We don't change things like our Constitution, or any laws really, on the hope that they will solve some problem. It requires at lest SOME evidence that it will likely achieve the desired results. And it has to not be overly burdensome on the rights of law abiding citizens. We don't pass laws in this country on feels and hopes.
First off, fuck you for trying to imply that gun-owners are bigots, misogynists and anti-democratic. And don't tell me you're not. If you want to debate at least do it honestly.
Secondly, the will of the American people changed those archaic laws for the better. We've grown s a culture and equality is the law of the land now. This is a good thing.
Exactly my point. You can't stop people from killing, that is not the goal, that was never the goal. All you can do is limit how many they can kill before you can stop them.Thirdly, we have plenty of gun control laws on the books and murder is already illegal. It's even punishable by death in many places. But sick/evil/criminal folks still kill regardless.
But I'm not supporting disarming the 99.9+% of law-abiding gun owners who are not the problem just so you can test out your theory that the sick/evil/criminal folks will follow our example.
But gun rights for citizens sure are. Seems you only like the parts of the constitution you agree with. If you have the votes to change it go ahead. Otherwise, respect democracy.well regulated voters arent in the constitution.
Holy poop! My e-peen shrunk two sizes just from viewing those photos. Here's one of mine to compensate.Kay... don’t forget those pussies with knives. Hope this triggers you - Dick head.
View attachment 7804View attachment 7805View attachment 7806View attachment 7807View attachment 7808View attachment 7804View attachment 7805View attachment 7806View attachment 7807View attachment 7808
Says you, obviously a constitutional law scholar. Wherefore is your credence? This term I keep hearing "law abiding citizens" creeps me out every time I hear it. It's a smoke screen that people use to hide behind. Seems that way more than 1/2 the perpetrators of mass murders with guns are in the possession of guns that were purchased "legally." They were "law abiding" until they weren't. Guns shouldn't be available for anyone anywhere to "own" legally. They should be tightly regulated to that degree.We don't change things like our Constitution, or any laws really, on the hope that they will solve some problem. It requires at lest SOME evidence that it will likely achieve the desired results. And it has to not be overly burdensome on the rights of law abiding citizens. We don't pass laws in this country on feels and hopes.
But gun rights for citizens sure are. Seems you only like the parts of the constitution you agree with. If you have the votes to change it go ahead. Otherwise, respect democracy.
Says you, obviously a constitutional law scholar. Wherefore is your credence? This term I keep hearing "law abiding citizens" creeps me out every time I hear it. It's a smoke screen that people use to hide behind. Seems that way more than 1/2 the perpetrators of mass murders with guns are in the possession of guns that were purchased "legally." They were "law abiding" until they weren't. Guns shouldn't be available for anyone anywhere to "own" legally. They should be tightly regulated to that degree.
Someone blew some smoke up your ass.
Says you, obviously a constitutional law scholar. Wherefore is your credence? This term I keep hearing "law abiding citizens" creeps me out every time I hear it. It's a smoke screen that people use to hide behind. Seems that way more than 1/2 the perpetrators of mass murders with guns are in the possession of guns that were purchased "legally." They were "law abiding" until they weren't. Guns shouldn't be available for anyone anywhere to "own" legally. They should be tightly regulated to that degree.
Someone blew some smoke up your ass.
My credentials? Can't debate the subject so attack your opponent?
In America every person is entitled to due process under the law and is considered innocent until proven guilty. Law abiding citizens are folks who haven't broken the law. I don't understand why you are so shocked that you can't just strip citizens of constitutional rights when they've committed no crime. It boggles my mind. And , yes, everyone is considered law abiding until they've broken the law. You don't need to be a constitutional scholar to understand these simple concepts. They are the building blocks of our (relatively) free society.
Or are you suggesting we allow the government to strip away citizen's constitution rights without proof or evidence or due process? You would actually want that??? What if they go after free speech next? Or the right to freely assemble? Or freedom of religion?
What creeps me out is when folks are willing to give up their hard-won rights for the illusion of safety. But I'm talking to the wind because you are so anti-gun that you'd give anything to see it happen, even if all you achieve is disarming those who've done nothing wrong.
Then again, if you have the votes to strike the 2A from our constitution then go ahead and do it.
I think there are plenty of perfectly safe countries that don't have rampant gun proliferation and also don't have to worry about government oppression. The idea that an armed populace is a free populace is a complete myth. The UK, Denmark etc are even more free than we are by most standards, have been around as countries for much longer and certainly are much less armed. Go ask a British citizen of he's afraid the government is coming for his rights because he doesn't have an AR 15 and he will laugh in your face and walk away quickly.My credentials? Can't debate the subject so attack your opponent?
In America every person is entitled to due process under the law and is considered innocent until proven guilty. Law abiding citizens are folks who haven't broken the law. I don't understand why you are so shocked that you can't just strip citizens of constitutional rights when they've committed no crime. It boggles my mind. And , yes, everyone is considered law abiding until they've broken the law. You don't need to be a constitutional scholar to understand these simple concepts. They are the building blocks of our (relatively) free society.
Or are you suggesting we allow the government to strip away citizen's constitution rights without proof or evidence or due process? You would actually want that??? What if they go after free speech next? Or the right to freely assemble? Or freedom of religion?
What creeps me out is when folks are willing to give up their hard-won rights for the illusion of safety. But I'm talking to the wind because you are so anti-gun that you'd give anything to see it happen, even if all you achieve is disarming those who've done nothing wrong.
Then again, if you have the votes to strike the 2A from our constitution then go ahead and do it.
"law abiding citizen" is just the no true Scotsman fallacy. It would be comical if it didn't have horrible outcomes. These people are shit, willing to let children die so they can polish their poser ass guns and dream about killing the government in some weird power fetish.
No, it's there. You don't have to trust me, you can read it for yourself. HINT: (they may not have actually used the word "gun.")No they aren't; the word 'gun' doesn't even appear in the constitution.
Yeah, the concept of there being a difference between folks who obey the law and folks who break the law is a no true Scotsman fallacy. Riiiight. Fuck individual responsibility and holding people accountable for their actions. Better to blame and judge the whole group based on the bad actions of a small few. Some folks try to do that to minorities, LGBTQ, women and other groups. I think it's called ignorance and discrimination.
No, it's there. You don't have to trust me, you can read it for yourself. HINT: (they may not have actually used the word "gun.")
I think you should melt down all your computers, tablets and phones to make a body shield for a 3rd-grader to keep in his backpack. The life you save would be worth us missing out on your thoughtful arguments.You are assuming its a constitutional right. Well regulated militia means something.
You are in luck though. With the stolen supreme court this will never be an issue. More children will die while you enjoy your poser lifestyle.
I sense much anger in this one. I hope he doesn't own a gun.hey everyone we will obey the laws as long as we like them. But if you pass a law we dont like we will kill you. Yee haw Im smart man.
We law abiding poser hillbilly alt right trash says so.
I think you should melt down all your computers, tablets and phones to make a body shield for a 3rd-grader to keep in his backpack. The life you save would be worth us missing out on your thoughtful arguments.
you can have a fucking well maintain musket bitch.
You are the one denying him his life-saving shield. That mythical kid needs it badly!!! Think of the children!!!Damn. Thats a pretty cold thing to say about some little kid dying scared and alone. Do you consider yourself a good person? Because you arent.
go ahead and double down.You are the one denying him his life-saving shield. That mythical kid needs it badly!!! Think of the children!!!