Hillary Clinton Says - "The Supreme Court is Wrong On The 2nd Amendment!"

originally posted by: RickyD
a reply to: MystikMushroom

Why have you chosen to answer/reply to everyone but me? Is my response to much for you to counter or do you just have blinders on?

My apologies, It wasn't intentional. Now, to respond:

So I guess we'd just have have rich warlords with private armies and battling it out? Is that kind of the gist of it?

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: DBCowboy

So, if I want biological weapons, nukes, missiles ect ... There should be some kind of open market for them?

Can we stick to a rational discussion on firearms?

I know you want to ban the sale and use and leave everyone defenseless for criminals, but can we at least have a single discussion on firearms without resorting to outrageous assertions like the ones you're making?

originally posted by: Slanter
a reply to: Realtruth

"Since the fundamental purpose of the militia was to serve as a check upon a standing army, it would seem the words “well regulated” referred to the necessity that the armed citizens making up the militia(s) have the level of equipment and training necessary to be an effective and formidable check upon the national government’s standing army."

Sorry to say, but I think it might be time to change this amendment. There is no safe way to for armed citizens to have the level of equipment to be effective and formidable against the national governments standing army. Back when we had wooden ships and muskets that was one thing, but you can't stash Apache helicopters in your backyard or give Cletus next door an Abrams tank to put in his driveway. Technology has changed the world.

Have you not been watching the taliban and isis or ok-duh?

they don't have tanks or gunships.

a reply to: MystikMushroom

Well if we could bring back the morality of past times no but as it stands these days more than likely yes. Either way criminals don't care. Do you want me to be law abiding or criminal...cause like them and many others I am not giving them up...

originally posted by: Slanter
a reply to: JohnthePhilistine

History is not always an indicator of the future. It would be extremely hard to use a pistol to trade up to a unmanned drone.

Well considering civies have drones too and they can be modified if you know what you are doing to attack drones not a shard as you think. Oh and dont forget its easy to spoof most drones with a laser pointer to disrupt their GPS.

originally posted by: NateTheAnimator
a reply to: Metallicus

I am pro-choice and pro-gay marriage despite the fact I disagree with both of them.

I'm not being argumentative just curious as to what you mean by this... Because isn't that a bit of an oxymoron?
Your pro-choice,yet you disagree with a women's choice to have an abortion. Your also pro-gay marriage yet I can only guess as to what aspect of gay marriage you disagree with...

The question wasn't for me, but I'll just say lots of people have personal opinions against things, but recognize that, as American citizens, they should in no way attempt to, or support attempts to infringe on the freedoms of others. Those who do are, in my opinion (and the opinion of any logical person, enemies of the United Statea, and should be considered anti-American pariahs.

I fully support his position. I myself am no fan of abortion - very few are, even those who have abortions, and care as much about gay marriage as I do about straight marriages of people I don't know. Put simply, giving a damn about what other people do which doesn't affect you is extremely bizarre. Wanting to exert control over other people is anti-American sociopathy at best.

originally posted by: Sremmos80
a reply to: Sargeras

No it is the tool to carry out the action. The action of terminating an unwanted pregnancy.

No, the coat hanger is the tool. Abortion is the murder. And the action of terminating an unwanted pregnancy is the act of terminating an unwanted competitor who stole your wife, money, car, street corner, ect.
Dont be disengenuous.

a reply to: Sargeras

Wait for it ...Tanks,planes ,missiles The usual counter ( I can kill a tank with homemade thermite)

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: DBCowboy

So, if I want biological weapons, nukes, missiles ect ... There should be some kind of open market for them?

So tired of that straw-man.

Why can't I own nuclear weapons? The Second Amendment guarantees it!

Take these two rights together: YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO SELF DEFENSE (and effective tools to defend yourself), and YOU MAY NOT MOLEST OR ATTACK THOSE WHO ARE NOT ATTACKING YOU FIRST.

Therefore, it is clear that any tool of self defense you choose must be a tool you can direct to be capable of discriminating between an attacker and an innocent. Clearly, the following tools are capable, with a minimum of care, of being directed against an attacker without jeopardizing innocents:

Knife
Club
Sword
Dirk
Mace
Pistol
Rifle
Shotgun
Cannon shooting ball shot

The following tools are slightly more questionable, since they are somewhat less able to be directed with great accuracy, and thusly are less discriminating. They have a larger chance of violating an innocent persons 'quiet enjoyment' of his property during the suppression of a criminal attack:

Machine gun
Machine pistol
Small explosive device
Satchel charge
Antitank rocket

The following tools are completely indiscriminate, and may harm innocent people decades after their use. These tools are completely inappropriate for your right of self defense, since they will certainly violate an innocent persons right of quiet enjoyment of their property.

Nuclear device
Large explosive device
Fuel-air explosive
Biological weapon
Land mine
Chemical weapon
Booby trap

Hopefully, this will lay to rest once and for all the straw man offered by so many antigunners. Nuclear weapons are not allowed to be used for self defense by private citizens because they are not sufficiently discriminating.

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
a reply to: Metallicus

You didn't address ANY of my questions.

Where is the line drawn?

WHO gets to draw that line?

Please, feel free to answer the questions.

Why does the "line" need to be redrawn?

Great questions in all respects.
The only person who gets to draw that line is not the
politician, but the citizen. In effect and for the support
of basic rights, the citizen's rights were always supposed
to supercede the pretext of public safety, for that is
indeed the purview and duty OF the citizen.

It's been argued successfully that no agency of the government
has ever been responsible for protecting the citizen per
the Supreme Court. Ergo, relegating that reponsibility to
the individual means lock and load, if you like. Me likey Garand,
glass- bedded thanks mighty. We go now 600 meters no scopey.

"Hasn't the "line" been defined already by the Constitution?"
Apparently not, since the bankrupt argument prevails.

The Supreme Court is composed of humans. Humans fall prey to corruption, and humans make mistakes.

They are not perfect.
They are not absolute.
They are not infallible.

To think otherwise is absurd.

a reply to: Eilasvaleleyn

So we should just randomly dismiss parts of the govt because a politician disagrees with them?

Heck why dont we just become a monarchy/dictatorship and do away with pesky things like elections, and the will of the people, checks and balances..

a reply to: Irishhaf

What are you on about? I despise Clinton. I am simply pointing out that the supreme court can and does make mistakes.

Those things are pretty gone right now, by the way. Your only hope is Sanders. My hope is that you grasp that hope before it's too late.

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Irishhaf

What are you on about? I despise Clinton. I am simply pointing out that the supreme court can and does make mistakes.

Those things are pretty gone right now, by the way. Your only hope is Sanders. My hope is that you grasp that hope before it's too late.

I hear you. I would vote for Sander's before voting for Hillary Clinton. I can't understand why the Democratic party is pushing to nominate this wackjob.

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Irishhaf

What are you on about? I despise Clinton. I am simply pointing out that the supreme court can and does make mistakes.

Those things are pretty gone right now, by the way. Your only hope is Sanders. My hope is that you grasp that hope before it's too late.

I hear you. I would vote for Sander's before voting for Hillary Clinton. I can't understand why the Democratic party is pushing to nominate this wackjob.

well bernie wants to disarm us too like britain or th eAUssies,so id say just dont vote instead or vote a write in who is pro rights and not confiscation. WHo if elected would be killed in a week.

originally posted by: yuppa

originally posted by: Realtruth

originally posted by: Eilasvaleleyn
a reply to: Irishhaf

What are you on about? I despise Clinton. I am simply pointing out that the supreme court can and does make mistakes.

Those things are pretty gone right now, by the way. Your only hope is Sanders. My hope is that you grasp that hope before it's too late.

I hear you. I would vote for Sander's before voting for Hillary Clinton. I can't understand why the Democratic party is pushing to nominate this wackjob.

well bernie wants to disarm us too like britain or th eAUssies,so id say just dont vote instead or vote a write in who is pro rights and not confiscation. WHo if elected would be killed in a week.

Yea I know it seems we have a choice of pick-a-nut that lives in a bubble, or write in. I may just have to write myself in

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: Asktheanimals

How would they do it?

How could they do it?

How could they remove all the personal firearms in the country?

They'd have to turn the US into a police-state.

We are a police/surveillance state.
With private ownership of firearms.
With the new tech coming out they will be obsolete within a decade anyway.
TPTB aren't worried, they've stayed the course for over 100 years now.
Just a few more final touches and they will have a one world government.

a reply to: Sargeras

Actually, the people have a great chance against the military...

3 reasons for times sake:
1. They are our brothers, sisters, moms, dads, daughters, sons, etc...
2. They took an oath to abide by the constitution
3. What would it look like afterwards... A military state? Hell, there wouldn't be an economy etc, they would ruin the nation.

It's a non starter in my eyes.

originally posted by: yuppa

well bernie wants to disarm us too like britain or th eAUssies,

We're not disarmed. Not even close. We just have COMMON SENSE GUN LAWS. Unless you already knew that in which case your post could be construed as fearmongering.....