New Posts
  • Hi there guest! Welcome to PoliticalJack.com. Register for free to join our community?

* To Protect and Serve*

llovejim

Current Champion
If you understand the English language and know how to read it, then it's clearly an explanation, not a condition. Try again. There is nothing that says the explanation should be met. The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed is completely clear. Your claim that it says shall not be infringed, but it can be infringed, is lame.

If you want limits on what people can have, then do it the right way. 2/3, 2/3 and 3/4. 50%+1 or worse, 5/9 are not in the Constitution.

Also, just because you have a right to something doesn't mean you can actually do it. Monty Python explained this phenomenon.


You have a right to an F-16. Now try to go buy one ... Freedom to bear arms does not say it's government's job to arm you or sell you weapons.
no, you are the one parsing words to the nth degree- like this doozy-

You have a right to an F-16. Now try to go buy one ... Freedom to bear arms does not say it's government's job to arm you or sell you weapons.

do you seriously believe if I had the money, and the inclination, I could buy an f-16, fully operational with all arms locked and loaded, all i needed to do was show my credit card? that is hilariously stupid!! the government does not manufacture F-16's. they just buy the shit out of them. i would love for some billionaire to try to buy one and when turned down, say it is his constitutional right, and then see him being carted away to some room for observation.
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
That's the beauty of it. Pass silly laws. When they don't work, use that as the reason for more oppressive laws.
Agreed. I never trust people who lie to me. Ever. It falls under the 'fool me once...' rule.

The anti-gun movement takes a mile for every inch of concession they have been given. They've fabricated terms to impose even more restrictions on honest, law-biding Americans. They cannot be trusted.
 

llovejim

Current Champion
no, you are the one parsing words to the nth degree- like this doozy-

You have a right to an F-16. Now try to go buy one ... Freedom to bear arms does not say it's government's job to arm you or sell you weapons.

do you seriously believe if I had the money, and the inclination, I could buy an f-16, fully operational with all arms locked and loaded, all i needed to do was show my credit card? that is hilariously stupid!!
Agreed. I never trust people who lie to me. Ever. It falls under the 'fool me once...' rule.

The anti-gun movement takes a mile for every inch of concession they have been given. They've fabricated terms to impose even more restrictions on honest, law-biding Americans. They cannot be trusted.
the reason you can't trust them is the same reason you believe you should have a gun in public- you are a scared little paranoid.
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
no. not in public, because that is when you infringe on my right to not be around wimps too scared to be in public without a gun. in your own home- go for it. as long as it is not an assault weapon with high capacity clips. why you think it makes you safer when all the facts show a gun in the house is used 30 times more often to shoot the owner, or a family member, or a friend than to shoot a bad guy is beyond me, but go for it!! in the meantime, stay away from me and my family in public with a gun or there will be trouble.

does this guy look normal to you?

View attachment 42882
Using your own logic, you can't post such things because it offends me when people seek to shred the Constitution. See how that works?

Dude, you don't have a right to not be offended. You have a right be left alone, as does everyone else.
 

llovejim

Current Champion
1) You need those things to arrest criminals
2) They do protect politicians, just not citizens
3) It's possible the criminals are still around when they come to investigate their crimes

Sure, cops will protect you if they happen to be there. But be honest, they are typically only to the crime scene when the criminal is gone.

And again, that's fine, that's what they are designed to do. Just don't take away our ability to protect ourselves, our families and our property by disarming us. Then we are defenseless against criminals
thank you captain obvious!! cops rarely show up before there is a crime or show up while a crime is in progress...but tell me, if they were driving down the street and saw some man beating up a woman or a dude in a wheelchair, would they protect those people, believe it is their duty to protect those people, even if it meant risking their own life, or not? why is anybody spewing such nonsense!! of course their main job is to protect, putting their own lives in danger to do so!! that is why we respect them and know how damn hard their job is and how low paid they are for such tough work...if all they did was show up and investigate, hell, almost anyone could do that.
 

llovejim

Current Champion
Using your own logic, you can't post such things because it offends me when people seek to shred the Constitution. See how that works?

Dude, you don't have a right to not be offended. You have a right be left alone, as does everyone else.
not offended. smart. people so stupid they think they need a gun in public to eat a hamburger or go to to a bounce park are inherently dangerous for two reasons- one, they are stupid and cowardly. and two, they have a gun. get it?
 

llovejim

Current Champion
Loons, yes, but you're seeking to prevent the remaining 99.999% of Americans from having that access.
and 99% of the people could have a nuclear bomb in their living room and never use it. so, should that be legal. you don't make much sense, boy. nobody is a mass shooter UNTIL THEY BECOME ONE. there are very few serial mass murderers shooting the shit out of people in public places with assault weapons!! read what even Ronald Reagan said about how society needs to ban these too lethal weapons...

assault weapon ban reagan letter.jpg
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
not offended. smart. people so stupid they think they need a gun in public to eat a hamburger or go to to a bounce park are inherently dangerous for two reasons- one, they are stupid and cowardly. and two, they have a gun. get it?
Disagreed for several reasons. You're scared of strangers. I get it. You're even more scared when those strangers are armed unless they are in uniform. Another reason why the comment was made that the Democrats want to disarm the public in favor of only allowing the police and the military to be armed. You're fine with an 18 year old soldier carrying a machine gun but are very disturbed by a middle-aged American with a pistol on his hip.

The problem with your fears is that you also think Trump is a wannabe dictator...which I agree he is. The difference between us is that you want to give that wannabe dictator even more power by disarming the public and I want to keep all wannabe dictators in check by keeping the public armed.
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
do you seriously believe if I had the money, and the inclination, I could buy an f-16, fully operational with all arms locked and loaded, all i needed to do was show my credit card?
No, I said you CANNOT just go buy them. I said it's not government's job to arm you. Government is just to stay out of it. No wonder you can't read the 2nd amendment, you can't read anything well
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
thank you captain obvious!! cops rarely show up before there is a crime or show up while a crime is in progress...but tell me, if they were driving down the street and saw some man beating up a woman or a dude in a wheelchair, would they protect those people, believe it is their duty to protect those people, even if it meant risking their own life, or not? why is anybody spewing such nonsense!! of course their main job is to protect, putting their own lives in danger to do so!! that is why we respect them and know how damn hard their job is and how low paid they are for such tough work...if all they did was show up and investigate, hell, almost anyone could do that.
LOL. So I had to explain it to you. So if I'm captain obvious, what does that make you for needing it to be explained?

Nowhere did I say it wasn't obvious, I thought it was. But you weren't getting it
 

OldTrapper

Council Member
Do you agree that all people have right of self-defense and that unalienable right means carry a gun?
As I said, I would support "open carry". However, the Second is not about the right to own a gun, it is about the defense of the country.

Just as a question, do you believe that ex-cons have a right to self defense?
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
and 99% of the people could have a nuclear bomb in their living room and never use it......
ROFLMAO. Okay dude, you think a pistol or a rifle are equal to a 30 megaton thermonuclear warhead. I hope others can see why I believe the anti-gun mob to be dishonest.

 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
As I said, I would support "open carry". However, the Second is not about the right to own a gun, it is about the defense of the country.

Just as a question, do you believe that ex-cons have a right to self defense?
The Second Amendment, like all Amendments, are limitations on government not citizens.

Yes, I do. If a person who has been released from prison can't be trusted to have their full rights restored then they shouldn't be released from prison.
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
As I said, I would support "open carry". However, the Second is not about the right to own a gun, it is about the defense of the country
Yes, the founders were terrified that the government would take away its own guns. So they put in the ... Bill of Rights ... that government has a right to guns, they can't take that way from themselves.

The government being armed was very important to the founders. They were terrified of the people. They knew government needed to be protected. You're making a lot of sense.

Oy vey ...

As I said, I would support "open carry". However, the Second is not about the right to own a gun, it is about the defense of the country.

Just as a question, do you believe that ex-cons have a right to self defense?
The founders thought of that. Your Constitutional rights can be restricted with ... due process of law. Clever buggers, weren't they?
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
not offended. smart. people so stupid they think they need a gun in public to eat a hamburger or go to to a bounce park are inherently dangerous for two reasons- one, they are stupid and cowardly. and two, they have a gun. get it?
People with gun permits commit crimes at lower rates than cops.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler

John Adams: Facts are stubborn things

As for eating a hamburger ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald's_massacre

This day isn't working out for you, is it?
 

OldTrapper

Council Member
The Second Amendment, like all Amendments, are limitations on government not citizens.
The government limitation is specifically ignored by gun proponents. It states:

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

It is about the security of the nation, not the individuals right to own weapons save for the purposes of the Militia, and the defense of the country. The Founders feared a permanent standing military, and thus they defended the need for a militia which comprised all able bodied men.

I find it laughable that so-called "patriots" fear joining a Militia, yet support a military under the complete control of the government.
 

llovejim

Current Champion
Disagreed for several reasons. You're scared of strangers. I get it. You're even more scared when those strangers are armed unless they are in uniform. Another reason why the comment was made that the Democrats want to disarm the public in favor of only allowing the police and the military to be armed. You're fine with an 18 year old soldier carrying a machine gun but are very disturbed by a middle-aged American with a pistol on his hip.

The problem with your fears is that you also think Trump is a wannabe dictator...which I agree he is. The difference between us is that you want to give that wannabe dictator even more power by disarming the public and I want to keep all wannabe dictators in check by keeping the public armed.
how am i scared of strangers if i don't even need to carry a gun? do you specialize in opposite logic? isn't the guy too afraid to go to the library without his gun the one scared of strangers? try to think!! you can do this!!

AND, NO. i am not fine with any soldier carrying any gun around with him off-duty. what part of I can handle anybody one on one, but if you give a 10 year old kid a gun, and he decides to shoot me from 10' away there is nothing I can do but hope he misses the first shot, do you not understand? the bad guy gets to make the first move!! what good is your penis-extender if it is in your shorts? do you think he will let you take a time out? challenge you to a draw? or do you plan on walking around with your big boy gun out cocked and loaded, drawing down on everyone that gets within a certain safety zone, IN CASE THEY MIGHT MEAN TO SHOOT YOU OR KICK YOUR ASS?
 

Max R.

On the road
Supporting Member
how am i scared of strangers if i don't even need to carry a gun? do you specialize in opposite logic? isn't the guy too afraid to go to the library without his gun the one scared of strangers? try to think!! you can do this!!

AND, NO. i am not fine with any soldier carrying any gun around with him off-duty. what part of I can handle anybody one on one, but if you give a 10 year old kid a gun, and he decides to shoot me from 10' away there is nothing I can do but hope he misses the first shot, do you not understand? the bad guy gets to make the first move!! what good is your penis-extender if it is in your shorts? do you think he will let you take a time out? challenge you to a draw? or do you plan on walking around with your big boy gun out cocked and loaded, drawing down on everyone that gets within a certain safety zone, IN CASE THEY MIGHT MEAN TO SHOOT YOU OR KICK YOUR ASS?
Because you want to disarm everyone else too so you won't be as afraid of strangers.

Now tell me again how having a gun is the same as having a nuke. :)
and 99% of the people could have a nuclear bomb in their living room and never use it. so, should that be legal. you don't make much sense, boy. nobody is a mass shooter UNTIL THEY BECOME ONE. there are very few serial mass murderers shooting the shit out of people in public places with assault weapons!! read what even Ronald Reagan said about how society needs to ban these too lethal weapons...

View attachment 42883
 

llovejim

Current Champion
People with gun permits commit crimes at lower rates than cops.

https://www.dailywire.com/news/8255/report-concealed-carry-permit-holders-are-most-law-aaron-bandler

John Adams: Facts are stubborn things

As for eating a hamburger ...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Ysidro_McDonald's_massacre

This day isn't working out for you, is it?
that may be true, but it means absolutely nothing. it is a non-sequitur that has to do with the number of people going to the trouble of having gun permits vs the number of people who do not, and the psychology of cops, in general. alpha males, generally. thrill-seekers. quick to act. that is why a lot of them are drawn to doing the hazardous work of the police....the same reason veterans have such high violent crime rates, the same type of psychological profile since we went to an all volunteer army and haven't had one war worth fighting for since. but still, a lot of guys want to face the danger, prove themselves, along with the vast majority who just want to serve their country and get some benefits for risking their life.

just as valid as statistic would be to say people who volunteer to serve people meals on wheels shoot less people than cops. why do so many cowardly gun nuts believe it would be safer if every jackass who could lift a gun carries one around in public? who wants to be around bozos that stupid and gutless? and as all the stats show from countries with sensible gun laws, that premise about the more guns, the safer is TOTAL BULLSHIT.
 

kaz

Small l libertarian
why do so many cowardly gun nuts believe it would be safer if every jackass who could lift a gun carries one around in public?
Gotcha, we're discussing your fantasy world where gun laws work. What you're advocating is that nuts have guns while the rest of us don't.

Here's the thing, criminals don't follow laws. Pretty devious, isn't it?

BTW, the second allows you to defend yourself with a gun, it doesn't mandate you carry a gun. Learn something new every day, don't you, Jim?
 
Top