Gun control forces struggle to keep i...

Gun control forces struggle to keep issue alive

There are 203 comments on the SanLuisObispo.com story from May 7, 2013, titled Gun control forces struggle to keep issue alive. In it, SanLuisObispo.com reports that:

Kelly Ayotte, Max Baucus and others as they struggle to persuade five senators to switch their votes and revive the rejected effort to expand background checks to more firearms buyers.

Join the discussion below, or Read more at SanLuisObispo.com.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#179 May 20, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
No it's not, when god put dogshit in your cranium that is not a joke - I gureantee :-/
"If, then, the arms-bearing right of the people is, as Blackstone says, an integral and inseparable part of their absolute rights as individuals, it follows that any and every constitution which assumes to protect life, liberty and property, necessarily insures the right of all the people to keep and bear arms, unless the contrary intention is clearly expressed, Hence the right is in nowise dependent upon the clause asserting that 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. The right exists whether the constitution contains that clause or not...."

"...But "these instruments," he says, "measure the power of the rulers; they do not measure the rights of the governed:" Cooley's Constitutional Limitations 37. "Neither military nor civil law," says the same high authority, "can take from the citizen the right to bear arms for the common defence. This is an inherited and traditionary right, guaranteed, also, by state and federal constitutions...."

"....... For all these repugnances of our statute to the acts of congress, I must pronounce the former unauthorized legislation in all its parts. Let the relator be discharged."

- Judge William Henry Barnum,[People, Ex. Rel. Bielfeld, v. Affelt. Illinois--Cook County Circuit Court. 1879.]
http://gunshowonthenet.blogspot.com/2013/05/t...

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#181 May 20, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Not quite, troll:
"But if there is serious injury,
Injury to the women, dumbazz.

You should spend the time you copy and pasting on learning how to read.

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#182 May 20, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
1879
Lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines, garnished with truffle pâté, brandy and a fried egg on top and Spam

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#183 May 20, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Injury to the women, dumbazz.
You should spend the time you copy and pasting on learning how to read.
You forget that people can read, you murderous traitor-troll. And that you are going to have to answer for every single last word you have typed or uttered. Enjoy the flames, traitor-troll.

"THE RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS

"There is an important distinction between firearms and fireworks. Some general knowledge of firearms is important to the public welfare; because it would be impossible, in case of war to organize promptly an efficient force of volunteers unless the people had some familiarity with weapons of war. The Constitution secures the right of the people to keep and bear arms. No doubt, a citizen who keeps a gun or pistol under judicious precautions practises in safe places the use of it, and in due time teaches his sons to do the same, exercises his individual right. No doubt a person whose residence or duties involve peculiar peril may keep a pistol for prudent self-defence...."

"...As to guns and pistols, then the citizen who practises with them is in the exercise of a constitutional right; and to mulct him for any unfortunate consequences, proof is needed that he was careless. He must exercise due care to avoid doing mischief. Sic utere tuo ut alienum non loedas--use your gun so as not to hurt another man--is a time honored maxim."

- Benjamin Vaughan Abbott, Judge and Jury: A Popular Explanation of Leading Topics in the Law of the Land. NEW YORK HARPER & BROTHERS, FRANKLIN SQUARE [1880](Mr. Abbott graduated from New York University in 1850, and Harvard Law School in 1851. He was the secretary of the New York Code Commission, which drew up the state's penal code in 1864. He also served on a commission created to revise the statutes of the United States from 1870-1872).

“Voters elect Big Bird”

Since: Jan 07

Dump American Eagle

#184 May 20, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines, garnished with truffle pâté, brandy and a fried egg on top and Spam
Moochele's FAVORITE dish.... How did you EVER get the recipe?

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#185 May 20, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Lobster Thermidor aux crevettes with a Mornay sauce, served in a Provencale manner with shallots and aubergines, garnished with truffle pâté, brandy and a fried egg on top and Spam
"In regard to the third allegation: it is indeed a strange state of civil society, when the very basis upon which all associations of men are formed, is imputed to a man as a crime. If self-defence which is so much an axiom: so commanding the instinctive approbation of all men and times as to be known as the "first law of nature," has to be defended, I might as well quit the field in despair. But if it was not a virtue of the highest order, to resist mobs, which are violators of the peace, and in derogation of the dignity and safety of the commonwealth, I need but bring the National and state Constitutions to my defence, which place the right of the citizen "to bear arms in self-defence," beyond the power of legislation, higher and more sacred than the Constitution itself."

- Cassius Marcellus Clay,[The writings of Cassius Marcellus Clay: Including Speeches and Addresses. Edited, With a Preface and Memoir, By Horace Greeley. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, No. 82 Cliff Street. 1848.](Mr. Clay served three times as Kentucky state representative, and was one of the founders of the Republican Party. Clay accepted the post of Minister to the Russian court, but the Civil War started before his departure. There were no Federal troops in Washington at the time, so Mr. Clay organized a group of 300 volunteers to protect the White House and U.S. Naval Yard from possible Confederate attack. These men became known as Cassius M. Clay's Washington Guards. This caused President Lincoln to give Clay a presentation Colt revolver).
Ol No Name

Boonton, NJ

#187 May 21, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"In regard to the third allegation: it is indeed a strange state of civil society, when the very basis upon which all associations of men are formed, is imputed to a man as a crime. If self-defence which is so much an axiom: so commanding the instinctive approbation of all men and times as to be known as the "first law of nature," has to be defended, I might as well quit the field in despair. But if it was not a virtue of the highest order, to resist mobs, which are violators of the peace, and in derogation of the dignity and safety of the commonwealth, I need but bring the National and state Constitutions to my defence, which place the right of the citizen "to bear arms in self-defence," beyond the power of legislation, higher and more sacred than the Constitution itself."
- Cassius Marcellus Clay,[The writings of Cassius Marcellus Clay: Including Speeches and Addresses. Edited, With a Preface and Memoir, By Horace Greeley. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, No. 82 Cliff Street. 1848.](Mr. Clay served three times as Kentucky state representative, and was one of the founders of the Republican Party. Clay accepted the post of Minister to the Russian court, but the Civil War started before his departure. There were no Federal troops in Washington at the time, so Mr. Clay organized a group of 300 volunteers to protect the White House and U.S. Naval Yard from possible Confederate attack. These men became known as Cassius M. Clay's Washington Guards. This caused President Lincoln to give Clay a presentation Colt revolver).
"Lovely Spam!
Wonderful Spam!"
spocko

Oakland, CA

#188 May 21, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
"In regard to the third allegation: it is indeed a strange state of civil society, when the very basis upon which all associations of men are formed, is imputed to a man as a crime. If self-defence which is so much an axiom: so commanding the instinctive approbation of all men and times as to be known as the "first law of nature," has to be defended, I might as well quit the field in despair. But if it was not a virtue of the highest order, to resist mobs, which are violators of the peace, and in derogation of the dignity and safety of the commonwealth, I need but bring the National and state Constitutions to my defence, which place the right of the citizen "to bear arms in self-defence," beyond the power of legislation, higher and more sacred than the Constitution itself."
- Cassius Marcellus Clay,[The writings of Cassius Marcellus Clay: Including Speeches and Addresses. Edited, With a Preface and Memoir, By Horace Greeley. New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers, No. 82 Cliff Street. 1848.](Mr. Clay served three times as Kentucky state representative, and was one of the founders of the Republican Party. Clay accepted the post of Minister to the Russian court, but the Civil War started before his departure. There were no Federal troops in Washington at the time, so Mr. Clay organized a group of 300 volunteers to protect the White House and U.S. Naval Yard from possible Confederate attack. These men became known as Cassius M. Clay's Washington Guards. This caused President Lincoln to give Clay a presentation Colt revolver).
You keep exposing the gunloons, misrepresenting the causes and costs of false consciousness regarding the constitutional concept of the "right to bear arms." Keep it up making others aware of the deceit, misperception, and dereliction of responsibility that have characterized the gun loons.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#189 May 21, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
You keep exposing the gunloons, misrepresenting the causes and costs of false consciousness regarding the constitutional concept of the "right to bear arms." Keep it up making others aware of the deceit, misperception, and dereliction of responsibility that have characterized the gun loons.
It becomes more lame every time you post it.

8th Congress 2nd Session
No. 94

ARMING OF MERCHANTMEN.

COMMUNICATED TO THE SENATE, DECEMBER 28, 1804.

To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, the memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of the City of New York respectfully showeth:

"...A defence by means of private armed vessels, under proper regulations, is not only reasonable, but, from the nature of things, is that kind of defence which ought to excite the least suspicion; it being certain that the degree of force employed and exercised will never exceed the measure required by necessity, as it will be regulated by calculations of commercial advantage to individuals, and in no degree by views of political aggrandizement. Your memorialists might conclude their petition with these observations, but the great importance of the proposed law, not only in respect to the revenue and commercial prosperity of the United States, but as it may affect the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, will, it is hoped, be their excuse for subjoining a few additional observations on the subject. The inhabitants of the United States have immemorially claimed the right of possessing arms for the defence of their houses, their lives, and property; this privilege has neither been surrendered, nor abridged: and every citizen, whether at home or upon the ocean, has believed that he might lawfully carry arms, in self defence. If this right be deemed important in the bosom of the State, where the laws and magistrates are ready to protect the citizen, how much more important must it be considered upon the high seas, where every nation has a common jurisdiction, but no nation an exclusive one; where every nation is bound to afford protection to the persons and property of its citizens, but no nation has magistrates to grant it; where aggression is most frequent, and the means of defence most necessary!"

"Your memorialists are duly sensible that Congress possesses the "power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" but, with all deference, they presume to inquire, whether, under this power, a law may be enacted, by which the citizens of the United States shall be deprived of a right, which has been supposed to be secured to them by the constitutions of the several States?

"Your memorialists forbear to add, but humbly request, that no law may be passed to prevent private vessels from sailing in an armed condition; or, in case a law on this subject is deemed necessary, that its provisions may be conformed, to the principles contained in die present memorial. And as in duty they will ever pray.

By order of the Corporation of the Chamber of Commerce, JOHN MURRAY, President. New York, December 21, 1804.

[Class IV. Commerce and Navigation. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, FROM THE FIRST SESSION OF THE FIRST TO THE THIRD SESSION OF THE THIRTEENTH CONGRESS, INCLUSIVE: COMMENCING MARCH 3, 1789, AND ENDING MARCH 3, 1815. SELECTED AND EDITED, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OP CONGRESS, BY WALTER LOWRIE, Secretary of the Senate, AND MATTHEW ST, CLAIR CLARKE, Clerk of the House of Representatives. Volume VII. WASHINGTON: PUBLISHED BY GALES AND SEATON. 1832.]
spocko

Oakland, CA

#190 May 21, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
It becomes more lame every time you post it.
8th Congress 2nd Session
No. 94
ARMING OF MERCHANTMEN.
COMMUNICATED TO THE SENATE, DECEMBER 28, 1804.
To the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled, the memorial of the Chamber of Commerce of the City of New York respectfully showeth:
"...A defence by means of private armed vessels, under proper regulations, is not only reasonable, but, from the nature of things, is that kind of defence which ought to excite the least suspicion; it being certain that the degree of force employed and exercised will never exceed the measure required by necessity, as it will be regulated by calculations of commercial advantage to individuals, and in no degree by views of political aggrandizement. Your memorialists might conclude their petition with these observations, but the great importance of the proposed law, not only in respect to the revenue and commercial prosperity of the United States, but as it may affect the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, will, it is hoped, be their excuse for subjoining a few additional observations on the subject. The inhabitants of the United States have immemorially claimed the right of possessing arms for the defence of their houses, their lives, and property; this privilege has neither been surrendered, nor abridged: and every citizen, whether at home or upon the ocean, has believed that he might lawfully carry arms, in self defence. If this right be deemed important in the bosom of the State, where the laws and magistrates are ready to protect the citizen, how much more important must it be considered upon the high seas, where every nation has a common jurisdiction, but no nation an exclusive one; where every nation is bound to afford protection to the persons and property of its citizens, but no nation has magistrates to grant it; where aggression is most frequent, and the means of defence most necessary!"
"Your memorialists are duly sensible that Congress possesses the "power to regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several States, and with the Indian tribes;" but, with all deference, they presume to inquire, whether, under this power, a law may be enacted, by which the citizens of the United States shall be deprived of a right, which has been supposed to be secured to them by the constitutions of the several States?
"Your memorialists forbear to add, but humbly request, that no law may be passed to prevent private vessels from sailing in an armed condition; or, in case a law on this subject is deemed necessary, that its provisions may be conformed, to the principles contained in die present memorial. And as in duty they will ever pray.
By order of the Corporation of the Chamber of Commerce, JOHN MURRAY, President. New York, December 21, 1804.
[Class IV. Commerce and Navigation. American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, FROM THE FIRST SESSION OF THE FIRST TO THE THIRD SESSION OF THE THIRTEENTH CONGRESS, INCLUSIVE: COMMENCING MARCH 3, 1789, AND ENDING MARCH 3, 1815. SELECTED AND EDITED, UNDER THE AUTHORITY OP CONGRESS, BY WALTER LOWRIE, Secretary of the Senate, AND MATTHEW ST, CLAIR CLARKE, Clerk of the House of Representatives. Volume VII. WASHINGTON: PUBLISHED BY GALES AND SEATON. 1832.]
Yes indeed, those words were spoken when all we had was an East Cost and half of the population were slaves. One can out grow of ignorance, when you know better you do better. Arrogance can merely be mistaken of the facts at any given time. However, when Ignorance and Arrogance are active at the same time, something bad is in the making.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#191 May 21, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes indeed, those words were spoken when all we had was an East Cost and half of the population were slaves. One can out grow of ignorance, when you know better you do better. Arrogance can merely be mistaken of the facts at any given time. However, when Ignorance and Arrogance are active at the same time, something bad is in the making.
The need and law of Self-Defense NEVER changes.

"but as it may affect the right of every citizen to keep and bear arms, will, it is hoped, be their excuse for subjoining a few additional observations on the subject. The inhabitants of the United States have immemorially claimed the right of possessing arms for the defence of their houses, their lives, and property; this privilege has neither been surrendered, nor abridged: and every citizen, whether at home or upon the ocean, has believed that he might lawfully carry arms, in self defence."
Ol No Name

Boonton, NJ

#192 May 21, 2013
spocko wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes indeed, those words were spoken when all we had was an East Cost and half of the population were slaves. One can out grow of ignorance, when you know better you do better. Arrogance can merely be mistaken of the facts at any given time. However, when Ignorance and Arrogance are active at the same time, something bad is in the making.
That's all the NRA has. 200 year old obsolete "government tyranny" fantasy scenarios to use as scare tactics against the American public for their own political & monetary gains. They line their pockets with the blood money of dead schoolchildren while they advocate & support terrorism & murder on their own shores. Wayne LaPierre is a domestic terrorist & should be charged & tried as such.
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#193 May 21, 2013
Ol No Name wrote:
<quoted text>
... 200 year old obsolete "government tyranny" fantasy scenarios ...
right ... as we read daily revelations of ever-more-outrageous and abusive use of the IRS and other federal agencies in no doubt criminal targeted persecutions of the current administration's political and ideological opponents.

Do you think before posting such ridiculous hyperbolic claptrap?

Think it's obsolete? Then amend the Constitution to make it so - or shut up about it already. 2A = individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. It's the settled law of the land.
Ol No Name

Boonton, NJ

#194 May 21, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
right ... as we read daily revelations of ever-more-outrageous and abusive use of the IRS and other federal agencies in no doubt criminal targeted persecutions of the current administration's political and ideological opponents.
Do you think before posting such ridiculous hyperbolic claptrap?
Think it's obsolete? Then amend the Constitution to make it so - or shut up about it already. 2A = individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense. It's the settled law of the land.
Yeah, and you're going to single-handedly defend your home against an army from behind your couch with your trusty semi-automatic phallic symbol before they turn it into a crater with a Tank round? Or are you one of those dunces that think "He with the biggest gun wins"? Let's talk hyperbole for real here. do you honestly think you need an AR-15 to defend your home from the occasional robber? Is it necessary to put a whole in him & the wall behind him the size of a softball to get your point across? I could kill you just as quickly with a simple .38 snubnose. Size doesn't matter in this case unless you need it to substitute for your own manly shortcomings.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#195 May 21, 2013
Ol No Name wrote:
<quoted text>
That's all the NRA has. 200 year old obsolete "government tyranny" fantasy scenarios to use as scare tactics against the American public for their own political & monetary gains. They line their pockets with the blood money of dead schoolchildren while they advocate & support terrorism & murder on their own shores. Wayne LaPierre is a domestic terrorist & should be charged & tried as such.
Should THESE gentlemen be charged as well?-

Signed by order

HENRY RUTGERS, Chairman
OLIVER WOLCOTT, Secy.


"This meeting being adjourned from 8th to the 10th, the following preamble and resolutions were read and adopted:

"Fellow Citizens--Once more we engaged in a war with a powerful nation.
"The ocean is denied to us; our waters violated; our land is invaded; hostile threaten to convert our habitations to heaps of ruins.
"We are called upon to save our possessions from spoil and destruction; to secure persons from slavery and death; to protect our families against outrage and violence; guard our institutions from assault and overthrow; to defend by freeborn valour our dear-bought independence.
"The lawful authorities, aware of this condition of things, have made provision to it. The national government has our security by fortification, troops, and floating force. The state has extended care, and caused other works of defence to erected. The common council of the city has laboured to insure our safety. It only remains that the sons of liberty come forth in their might, and demonstrate that in a contest for all that is near and dear to them, they are invincible.
"Our regular regiments are already at their stations. The organized militia will them on the shortest summons. The several corps of volunteers are inflamed with patriotic ardour. To these bands, other military associations will be added, composed those who enjoy honourable exemptions from ordinary service, but who will come forward on this trying occasion.
"This meeting is called for the purpose enabling us to renew our pledge to support the constitution; to invigorate the laws; to aid with our best efforts the administration of our beloved country; to see that it be not approached by spies and emissaries; to defend the great interests of the union with our treasure and our blood.
"It is our glory and our boast that we are freemen. Our constitution and government are acts of free and unbiased choice. They are ours and we will never abandon them.
"The citizens are the safeguards of a free state. Their right to keep and bear arms has never been infringed. We will use these weapons resolutely in support of our privileges; with these we will manfully oppose the enemy who shall presume to invade them...."

- The Examiner, NEW YORK SATURDAY AUGUST 13, 1814, Pg. 209 [THE EXAMINER: CONTAINING POLITICAL ESSAYS ON THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS OF THE TIME; PUBLIC LAWS AND OFFICIAL DOCUMENTS. BARENT GARDENIER, ESQ. EDITOR. "Thy spirit, Independence! let us share: Lord of the lion heart, and eagle eye! Thy steps we follow, with our bosoms bare, Nor heed the storm that howls along the sky." Smollett VOLUME II. FROM MAY TO OCTOBER, 1814. NEW YORK: PRINTED AND PUBLISHED BY THE EDITOR. NO. 34, CEDAR STREET.

[Henry Rutgers was a United States Revolutionary War hero and philanthropist from New York City, New York. His donations reopened Queen's College in New Brunswick, New Jersey. Which is now named after him; "Rutgers, The State University of New Jersey."]

[Oliver Wolcott was a signer of the United States Declaration of Independence as well as the Articles of Confederation as a representative of Connecticut. He was the fourth Governor of the state of Connecticut.]

Since: Feb 11

Location hidden

#196 May 21, 2013
GunShow1 wrote:
<quoted text>
The need and law of Self-Defense NEVER changes.
Self-defense, you whining welfare tramp?

You haven't lifted a finger for this country and you would push people over to get to the head of the collaborators line.

Once a snitch, GayDavy: always a snitch.

No wonder you got dumped by your "life partner".;

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#197 May 21, 2013
Ol No Name wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, and you're going to single-handedly defend your home against an army from behind your couch with your trusty semi-automatic phallic symbol before they turn it into a crater with a Tank round? Or are you one of those dunces that think "He with the biggest gun wins"? Let's talk hyperbole for real here. do you honestly think you need an AR-15 to defend your home from the occasional robber? Is it necessary to put a whole in him & the wall behind him the size of a softball to get your point across? I could kill you just as quickly with a simple .38 snubnose. Size doesn't matter in this case unless you need it to substitute for your own manly shortcomings.
Ask the Russian peasants which DESTROYED the nazi military machine. About half of our police and military will be on the side of the people, traitor-troll. Good ALWAYS prevails over evil.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#198 May 21, 2013
barefoot2626 wrote:
<quoted text>
Self-defense, you whining welfare tramp?
You haven't lifted a finger for this country and you would push people over to get to the head of the collaborators line.
Once a snitch, GayDavy: always a snitch.
No wonder you got dumped by your "life partner".;
Poor, poor little filthy troll. Has NOTHING of any real significance to post. Because you've THOROUGHLY been DESTROYED by the facts. So all you have left is spewing vile and ignorant conjecture. LOSER.
Teddy R

Reston, VA

#199 May 21, 2013
Ol No Name wrote:
<quoted text>
Yeah, and you're going to single-handedly defend your home against an army from behind your couch with your trusty semi-automatic phallic symbol before they turn it into a crater with a Tank round? Or are you one of those dunces that think "He with the biggest gun wins"? Let's talk hyperbole for real here. do you honestly think you need an AR-15 to defend your home from the occasional robber? Is it necessary to put a whole in him & the wall behind him the size of a softball to get your point across? I could kill you just as quickly with a simple .38 snubnose. Size doesn't matter in this case unless you need it to substitute for your own manly shortcomings.
Of course, your self-righteous elitist lib prog Statist control freak intolerant mind completely misses the point, which is that choice of self-defense arm and, indeed, whether and when to bear arms at all, is a matter reserved by the highest law in the land to the individual judgment and choice of the FREE INDIVIDUAL - your countryman.

But you can't stand that, can you? Because you and your fellow self-righteous elitist lib prog Statist control freaks are smarter than everyone else, and intolerant of free thought and others' values and beliefs.

Well, tough darts. The fact that you're a laughably ignorant fool spewing out your azz with the oldest bullshyte strawman argument around, on a subject you quite obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about is quite beside the point, fails on its face, and requires no response.

GunShow1

“Shall NOT be infringed!”

Since: Apr 13

San Jose, CA.

#200 May 21, 2013
Teddy R wrote:
<quoted text>
Of course, your self-righteous elitist lib prog Statist control freak intolerant mind completely misses the point, which is that choice of self-defense arm and, indeed, whether and when to bear arms at all, is a matter reserved by the highest law in the land to the individual judgment and choice of the FREE INDIVIDUAL - your countryman.
But you can't stand that, can you? Because you and your fellow self-righteous elitist lib prog Statist control freaks are smarter than everyone else, and intolerant of free thought and others' values and beliefs.
Well, tough darts. The fact that you're a laughably ignorant fool spewing out your azz with the oldest bullshyte strawman argument around, on a subject you quite obviously don't have a clue what you're talking about is quite beside the point, fails on its face, and requires no response.
Bullseye!

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Guns Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News 'How many more tragedies' asks mayor, after 11-... 26 min payme 5
News Americans spent an estimated $17 billion on amm... 10 hr James Andrews 1
News Appeals court upholds MD assault weapons ban Thu Jagermann 200
News American Outdoor Brands Corp: Time to Move On? Thu payme 13
News Another Second Amendment Appeal Shot-Down by th... Thu jimwildrickjr 2
30-06 (7.62X63) vs .308 (7.62X51) (Feb '11) Mar 22 Sentry Watch 120
News Official Heckler And Koch 22Lr Replica Rifles (Jan '10) Mar 20 okimar 5
More from around the web