You are still going with your wishful thinking interpretation of "well regulated", and of English grammar. The absolute phrase that opens the 2nd Amendment does not modify the rest of the sentence.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Reality vs. trump supporters
- Thread starter Taichiliberal
- Start date
You are still going with your wishful thinking interpretation of "well regulated", and of English grammar. The absolute phrase that opens the 2nd Amendment does not modify the rest of the sentence.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Quit exploiting your mom and dad and get out of their basement libtard.
I don't care what jesus believes. My guys are treated well AND are free to pursue better opportunities anytime. This is america. When they leave they take the knowledge to create millions of dollars in income over their work career IF the work hard and sacrifice as I have done.
I wonder which of your employees actually keeps your operation going. You're clearly not capable of independent thinking. Someone has to be doing your thinking for you. That is, unless your business is one that's very simple and routine to operate.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
They all do. They all are part of running a business. That doesn't mean that they are business partners and deserve an equal split in the profits.
They earn a paycheck at a wage that they agree to work for. They get bonuses and other perks regularly. Just like many other businesses and their employees.
Ooh mom just called you up for din din.
Btw while you AND my employees sleep I am sitting in front of my business waiting for police for the second time this new year because my alarm system was triggered. Should I split this problem with them as well?
Because the local hood rats decide to shoot off massive illegal fireworks in my parking lot.
Problem is the owners right. Screw that shop I'm not risking my life to check that out. It ain't my money. Not my problem. Ha ha all things I've heard and have said myself when I was at my last job and the owner wanted us to respond to alarm events.
Because the local hood rats decide to shoot off massive illegal fireworks in my parking lot.
Problem is the owners right. Screw that shop I'm not risking my life to check that out. It ain't my money. Not my problem. Ha ha all things I've heard and have said myself when I was at my last job and the owner wanted us to respond to alarm events.
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
It's part of the sentence and a comprehensive part of the Amendment. Like I said previously, running to the Federalist Papers does NOT justify YOUR interpretation of the FINAL law. My previous posts stands valid. Trying to interpret the 2nd amendment to mean that any yahoo who can afford it can get ANY type of weapon they want, walk around with it, cross state lines with it, etc., etc. without any state or federal oversight has NOT passed the litmus test of reality and history in this country. Period. And since any law abiding citizen can choose from a plethora of revolvers, semi-autos, shotguns, hunting rifles, etc., AND form a legal militia in some states outside of the National Guard, the clap trap from the current leadership of the NRA just sounds dumb.
A gift for you and the other Trumpanzees here:
[video=https://youtu.be/03RW7EUkT4w]Asleep At The Wheel[/video]
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
And all you've got is your ignorant opinion. No understanding of English grammar, no understanding of history. Deliberate ignorance of the actual law. As I pointed out earlier, almost every adult male citizen is, according to federal law, a member of the unorganized militia. And, according to SCOTUS, the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right, having nothing to do with a militia. I referred you to the Federalist Papers to show you the contemporary meaning of "well regulated". Apparently you're too scared of reality for that. Most of our current gun control laws are a legacy of post-Civil War attempts to keep the newly-freed slaves from being able to defend themselves. That started more than a century of chipping away at the 2nd Amendment. It's only recently that we've started to return towards the original interpretation. We've still got a ways to go. A key bit of reality that I'm sure that you are blind to, there's never been a gun control law that has been demonstrated to have made things better. At best, they don't make things worse. Gun control laws only 'work' if they are unnecessary to begin with.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
So your first 4 sentences are childish insults, and then a regurgitation of points already addressed. You stupidly ignore the FACTS I previously pointed to...that there were gun regulation for militias in various states since colonial times, LONG before the Civil War...a matter of fact, a matter of history if you've got the intellectual honesty to verify with basic research. And since populations grow, times change and such, gun laws do so also. And here's a little retort to your screed that I found enlightening: https://www.thetrace.org/2015/11/gun-control-race-history-saul-cornell/
Possibly the dumbest thing you've stated is your last sentence. there are SO many reports and studies showing the effectiveness of various gun laws in various states in conjunction with federal laws, that your statement could only parrot Lapierre's ramblings. But you believe it so...so much more to pity you.
You're not a Trump chump, but the NRA's current rabid rabble would love you to death.
My first 4 sentences were an accurate summation of your arguments so far. Then a regurgitation of points that you have simply ignored. Just as you ignore me fact that it was legal for private citizens to own field artillery and warships, irrespective of membership in an official militia. My last sentence was a question that I've been asking for decades and have never gotten any decent answers. No studies, at most just references to countries that didn't have any problems with guns before they had any gun control laws. So I think you're still just promoting your own wishful thinking. It's clear that you don't actually have any such studies either. If there are any such studies, they're probably just more of the usual wishful thinking that's all we ever see from your side.
As for the NRA, they appear to be the lone voice of reason In this debate. It's pretty clear that you're just the typical control freak, immersed in paranoia about guns and fake facts.
Your "little retort" is just the usual mass of unsupported claims. In fact, it supports one of my own beliefs, that there was actually no legal support for the unconstitutional restrictions on concealed carry. That those restrictions were allowed based on the personal biases of the courts. You may have noticed that, unlike the 1st Amendment, the 2nd is not restricted to a specific level of government.
The true "rabid rabble" is all on your side.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Last edited:
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
There you have it folks....this NRA flunky states with proud ignorance that any valid documentation that shows gun control laws working to lower gun crime and such are:" … probably just more of the usual wishful thinking that's all we ever see from your side".
In other words, hear no evil, see no evil is Reggie's response to any valid information that contradicts his world view....that's why he didn't dare touch the source I linked which blew a hole in his NRA hot air balloon. That he considers the performance of the NRA and it's leadership in the last decade as the "voice of reason" is as pathetic as it is frightening.
Clearly, Reggie's got issues if he can't feel secure with the plethora of weapons readily available to any law abiding citizen. "I want it because I want it" is a child's view...and guns are NOT a child's plaything...just ask all the surviving family members killed in mass shootings in the last 20 years.
Oh, and the OP stands valid...this side issue non-withstanding. Carry on, Reggie.
Last edited:
IOW the studies that you claim exist are just more of the delusions that seem to be all that your side of this issue have got.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
I don't know what "IOW" stands for, but your repeating nonsense regarding gun control laws comes off like Lapierre after a weekend bender. But hope springs eternal....let's see if you have the intellectual honesty to address the points in the following links;
https://www.businessinsider.com/gun...t-year-as-compared-to-other-causes-of-death-4
https://www.inverse.com/article/58447-what-gun-control-actually-works
http://www.center4research.org/does-gun-control-really-work/
NOW THIS HAS STRAYED FROM THE OP. SINCE YOU AND I AGREE ON THAT, I SEE CONTINUING THIS GUN DEBATE ONLY FOR A FEW MORE POSTS.
Did you even look at your first link? It says that you're more likely to be killed by the police than in a mass shooting. And while it says that "Gun violence is a leading cause of death in America ", it's actually pretty far down their list.
And the only restrictions on gun control research have been on the CDC conducting fake research designed to promote gun control. The CDC has always been able to research the causes of gun violence. But they've only wanted to promote gun control.
And note that 5 of the 6 countries listed as accounting for half the global firearm deaths in 2016 already have very strict gun laws. Obviously, they don't work as well as you want them to. Other factors are much more important. As for suicides and guns, Japan, with very strict gun laws, until very recently had a suicide rate that was typically higher than our combined homicide and suicide rates. You don't need a gun to commit suicide.
Overall, that first link is focused solely on guns, there's no indication that any of their proposed measures had an effect on the total homicide rate. Note that Vermont, with virtually no gun control laws and constitutional carry, is typically one of the safest states in the country. Now your 3rd link talks a lot about the Brady Bill and how many failed the background checks. However, it's a felony for most of those to even try and buy a gun. Yet almost none of them are ever prosecuted for that. Of course, background checks don't do anything about the black market, except to give it even more customers. And there's no way to require a permit to purchase on the black market. The only way to legally buy a gun online is to have it shipped to a local FFL, who will have you go through the NICS background check.
So a lot of wishful thinking and disinformation.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
You say individual states have their own "rules" or better said, constitutions. Here,s PA.'s;
Article 1, section 21 of the Constitution of Pennsylvania states, "The right of the citizens to bear arms in defense of themselves and the State shall not be questioned."
I see no mention of "RULES regarding the "well regulated" weapons," nor do I see it in the US constitution.
What "clap trap from the current leadership of the NRA" do you speak of?
Truth Deflector is a terribly rude bigot. That goes along with being rabid Trumpy. Bigots are rightys and therefore pro-trump.
The only deep state is the one that Trump is building that he controls.
Sent from my SM-G950U using Tapatalk
Taichiliberal
Shaken, not stirred!
Once again, you just take your opinion as fact over valid, documented evidence. Labeling everyone else a liar while being unable to logically or factually prove such just makes you a 3rd rate propagandist on this particular subject.
YOU stated that there is no proof that gun control works and that all studies on such were bogus. The first link details various information regarding guns to show how proper, in depth and corroborated studies are stymied by weak legislation and the Orange Oaf's efforts to eliminate even that. What's fascinating in your myopic, supposition and conjecture laden screed is that you IGNORE that your life time chances of experiencing gun violence is 1 in 315, mass shootings are 1 in 11,125. Given we are a population of over 300 million, those odds are not so comfortable....just ask the surviving family members of mass shooting victims in the last 30 years.....you know, like one of the sub-titles said, "After Congress let a 1994 ban on assault weapons expire in 2004, gun massacre deaths skyrocketed." Here are some other titles (with highlighted links to documentation) that you ignore from the first link: States that have stricter background-check laws for gun purchases have fewer school shootings.
There's a widening gap between the number of gun deaths in states with relaxed gun-control laws and states with more restrictive policies, according to a study published in March. Research shows that states that require background checks on all gun sales had 35% fewer gun deaths per capita between 2009 and 2012.
That's just pulling the rug out from under your first myopic review. You display similar tactics for the other 2 links. All the reader has to do is just click on the links and read the material themselves to see your folly.
You should apply for Lapierre's job....if the organization is still financially solvent by the end of this year. Carry on.