Donald Trump running for president

[kisaj]

You are wasting your time, these guys wake up looking to fight and point fingers and then "pray" for others.

 

[manifesto]

You are wasting your time, these guys wake up looking to fight and point fingers and then "pray" for others.

I think its the radical left looking for the fights, and pointing fingers...

 

[kisaj]

Radical left or right is frightening all the same.

 

[ax1]

Shall not be infringed does not have any other stipulations or requirements attached to it.

Imagine Congress writing out the Bill of Rights today, damn thing would be 19800 pages long. They would have to buy a skyscraper just to display the whole documents. They would throw in stupid crap too like protecting certain endangered species of cockroach and funding for bathrooms in parks for those who cant tell whats between their legs. The first Bill of Right would be, "though shall not offend anyone, unless your offending those on the right." Then the Senate would negation in "though shall have right to build walls and throw mexican babies in cages"

 

[ax1]

You are wasting your time, these guys wake up looking to fight and point fingers and then "pray" for others.

Source?

 

[ax1]

 

[dixonk]

If only the founding fathers could have predicted we would be overrun with soy boy pussy ass bitches afraid of inanimate objects...

 

[manifesto]

Radical left or right is frightening all the same.

The radical right isn't looting, rioting, and pushing for a socialist government in America.

 

[thebigt]

Oh wow. I honestly didn’t expect you to miss the point that much. I mean that went so far over your head you probably thought it was a UFO. Big yikes.

over my head?

your post sounded like you have been on a 3 week bender, lol...get help!!!!

 

[Woody]

over my head?

your post sounded like you have been on a 3 week bender, lol...get help!!!!

It’s hilarious to me that conservatives ridicule public education and higher education as a breeding ground for liberals yet so many fail to understand hyperboles and more complex thoughts. Maybe higher education isn’t so bad, eh?

The knife was an example and a hyperbole. It loses its impact when you have to explain, but of course when you interpret something that is so obviously facetious as literal, the meaning is lost as well. I do not trust the majority of the population with a steak knife, because they are morons. There are so many stupid people and we have gotten so advanced that Darwinism is having trouble keeping up. I am of the opinion that someone who uses 98% of their brain capacity to breathe should not have easy, unfettered access to a gun.

And, in case you still fail to comprehend, I asked my former kindergarten teacher to translate into the simplest of terms:

“People stupid. Stupid people no need gun.”

 

[ax1]

The radical right isn't looting, rioting, and pushing for a socialist government in America.

The radical right Repulsivkins are really only a little less socialist than the radical left Demonkraps. That’s the truth, it’s all in their policies.

 

[thebigt]

You are wasting your time, these guys wake up looking to fight and point fingers and then "pray" for others.

you must have extra time on your hands, lol.

 

[dixonk]

It’s hilarious to me that conservatives ridicule public education and higher education as a breeding ground for liberals yet so many fail to understand hyperboles and more complex thoughts. Maybe higher education isn’t so bad, eh?

The knife was an example and a hyperbole. It loses its impact when you have to explain, but of course when you interpret something that is so obviously facetious as literal, the meaning is lost as well. I do not trust the majority of the population with a steak knife, because they are morons. There are so many stupid people and we have gotten so advanced that Darwinism is having trouble keeping up. I am of the opinion that someone who uses 98% of their brain capacity to breathe should not have easy, unfettered access to a gun.

And, in case you still fail to comprehend, I asked my former kindergarten teacher to translate into the simplest of terms:

“People stupid. Stupid people no need gun.”

Translation: anyone that doesn’t think like you shouldn’t have a gun.

So riddle me this. Who determines who is smart enough to be able to defend themselves? What’s the metric or litmus test that should be applied? How do you avoid abuse of the system and ensure people can freely exercise their 2A rights. Talk about a slippery slope.

 

[thebigt]

It’s hilarious to me that conservatives ridicule public education and higher education as a breeding ground for liberals yet so many fail to understand hyperboles and more complex thoughts. Maybe higher education isn’t so bad, eh?

The knife was an example and a hyperbole. It loses its impact when you have to explain, but of course when you interpret something that is so obviously facetious as literal, the meaning is lost as well. I do not trust the majority of the population with a steak knife, because they are morons. There are so many stupid people and we have gotten so advanced that Darwinism is having trouble keeping up. I am of the opinion that someone who uses 98% of their brain capacity to breathe should not have easy, unfettered access to a gun.

And, in case you still fail to comprehend, I asked my former kindergarten teacher to translate into the simplest of terms:

“People stupid. Stupid people no need gun.”

i've got a arsenal...shotguns, rifles, and handguns.

 

[ax1]

i've got a arsenal...shotguns, rifles, and handguns.

But no steak knives, butter knives should be ok if made from plastic, grrrr forget plastic must save shrimp, cardboard ok, recycled cardboard or biodegradable soybeans that is ok guess.

 

[Woody]

i've got a arsenal...shotguns, rifles, and handguns.

I’m pretty sure everyone commenting on this thread owns multiple firearms.

 

[Woody]

i've got a arsenal...shotguns, rifles, and handguns.

I’m pretty sure everyone commenting on this thread owns multiple firearms.

 

[jswain34]

No comment

 

[ax1]

I’m pretty sure everyone commenting on this thread owns multiple firearms.

I don’t, never did and I’m probably most hardcore when it comes here when it comes to protecting my right to go out and get one and for other people to do so.

 

[jswain34]

No comment

 

[thebigt]

I’m pretty sure everyone commenting on this thread owns multiple firearms.

whatcha got?

 

[dixonk]

I’m pretty sure everyone commenting on this thread owns multiple firearms.

I had an epic collection until the day I decided to take them all out on the lake and lost them all in a tragic boating accident.

 

[Woody]

I had an epic collection until the day I decided to take them all out on the lake and lost them all in a tragic boating accident.

 

[Jiigzz]

Shall not be infringed does not have any other stipulations or requirements attached to it.

I thought we went over this. It can be, and is, argued in court.

 

[dixonk]

I thought we went over this. It can be, and is, argued in court.

Doesn’t make it right. Unless I am mistaken and courts are infallible.

 

[ax1]

I thought we went over this. It can be, and is, argued in court.

Exept, fuq the courts, mostly, they dont give a damn about their oaths to protect their US Constitution. Thats why we have the 2nd Amendment. Courts arent our god, they just are a layer to spread out governmental powers.

 

[Jiigzz]

Translation: anyone that doesn’t think like you shouldn’t have a gun.

So riddle me this. Who determines who is smart enough to be able to defend themselves? What’s the metric or litmus test that should be applied? How do you avoid abuse of the system and ensure people can freely exercise their 2A rights. Talk about a slippery slope.

Do you support the arming of people in jail or people released from prison for murdering children?

 

[ax1]

Do you support the arming of people in jail or people released from prison for murdering children?

People who infringe on the rights of others have proper due process and should be punished for their crimes, they lose their privileges. Owning powerful firearms does not infringe the rights of others.

 

[Jiigzz]

People who infringe on the rights of others have proper due process and should be punished for their crimes, they lose their privileges. Owning powerful firearms does not infringe the rights of others.

Ah, but who determines that?

I thought "shall not be infringed" meant shall not be infringed. Now you're telling me that actually there are nuances to the constitution and to law.

Interesting.

 

[ax1]

Ah, but who determines that?

I thought "shall not be infringed" meant shall not be infringed. Now you're telling me that actually there are nuances to the constitution and to law.

Interesting.

The courts and jury determine that, infringing the rights of others is a crime, of course. Thats why we have police and a judicial system so we can protect the concept of "shall not be infringed." Thats their role, and thats where it ends.

Governments role to to protect its citizens from having their rights infringed. Its a simple as it can get.

 

[dixonk]

Do you support the arming of people in jail or people released from prison for murdering children?

That’s weak. I don’t support the right of oxygen to anyone who murders a child. They should be executed. As for people that serve their time for their crime and their punishment has been met then yes they should have all their rights restored.

 

[Jiigzz]

That’s weak. I don’t support the right of oxygen to anyone who murders a child. They should be executed. As for people that serve their time for their crime and their punishment has been met then yes they should have all their rights restored.

Ok so you dont support it.

But the constitution doesnt state "except baby murderers". It states the right of the people.

Other legislation is used to remove the rights of a felon for owning firearms. But does that infringe on their rights, because it isnt written in the constitution after all?

 

[dixonk]

Ok so you dont support it.

But the constitution doesnt state "except baby murderers". It states the right of the people.

Other legislation is used to remove the rights of a felon for owning firearms. But does that infringe on their rights, because it isnt written in the constitution after all?

It also grants the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Which those baby killers have taken away from someone else. But carry on and continue to try to find someway to twist it to suit your agenda.

If you are a free person and not infringing on the rights of others then you should be entitled to all of your rights.

 

[ax1]

Ok so you dont support it.

But the constitution doesnt state "except baby murderers". It states the right of the people.

Other legislation is used to remove the rights of a felon for owning firearms. But does that infringe on their rights, because it isnt written in the constitution after all?

It is written very clearly and as simple as possible, the rights shall not be infringed, so if your infringing on the rights of people you will be destroyed, after proper due process of course.

 

[Jiigzz]

It also grants the right of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. Which those baby killers have taken away from someone else. But carry on and continue to try to find someway to twist it to suit your agenda.

If you are a free person and not infringing on the rights of others then you should be entitled to all of your rights.

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are in the Declaration of Independance, not the Constitution.

 

[dixonk]

Life, liberty and pursuit of happiness are in the Declaration of Independance, not the Constitution.

All three declaration, constitution, and bill of rights work together and is what guides this country.

 

[ax1]

All three declaration, constitution, and bill of rights work together and is what guides this country.

I would always throw in the "Federalist Papers" as a companion piece for a better understanding for those new or unfamiliar (much of the US population, LOL!) with the US Constitution.

Amazon.com

 

[dixonk]

I would always throw in the "Federalist Papers" as a companion piece for a better understanding for those new or unfamiliar (much of the US population, LOL!) with the US Constitution.

Amazon.com

Absolutely.

 

[thebigt]

You are wasting your time, these guys wake up looking to fight and point fingers and then "pray" for others.

i think it is time to pray...sorry if you find that offensive.

 

[Jiigzz]

It is written very clearly and as simple as possible, the rights shall not be infringed, so if your infringing on the rights of people you will be destroyed, after proper due process of course.

You've interpreted that way. 2a does not say "if you've infringed on others, you lose your right to own a firearm".

The constitution doesnt take away rights, it grants them. The law takes away rights, in respect to the constitution.

You're interpretation, as well as the laws interpretation, is that certain situations mean that some rights are relinquished. So "shall not infringe" is nuanced and dictated and argued in court.

The law states if you have been convicted of an offence where the sentence is over a year in prison, then your right to owning firearms is lost. The constitution doesn't set those boundaries, the law does. So now we're not just talking murderers, but also other felonies and state offences that fit the bracket.

All of a sudden "shall not infringe" is growing smaller and smaller.

Another aspect is that 'people deemed a risk to society' have their rights removed. These people havent committed an offence against anyone, they have been assessed to be a risk. Are their rights being infringed? Why it why not?

Again, nuanced and argued in court.

 

[thebigt]

You've interpreted that way. 2a does not say "if you've infringed on others, you lose your right to own a firearm".

The constitution doesnt take away rights, it grants them. The law takes away rights, in respect to the constitution.

You're interpretation, as well as the laws interpretation, is that certain situations mean that some rights are relinquished. So "shall not infringe" is nuanced and dictated and argued in court.

The law states if you have been convicted of an offence where the sentence is over a year in prison, then your right to owning firearms is lost. The constitution doesn't set those boundaries, the law does. So now we're not just talking murderers, but also other felonies and state offences that fit the bracket.

All of a sudden "shall not infringe" is growing smaller and smaller.

Another aspect is that 'people deemed a risk to society' have their rights removed. These people havent committed an offence against anyone, they have been assessed to be a risk. Are their rights being infringed? Why it why not?

Again, nuanced and argued in court.

lol...how would you like it if americans started interpreting new zealand law?

 

[manifesto]

Hmmmm

 

[Jiigzz]

lol...how would you like it if americans started interpreting new zealand law?

Wouldnt bother me. Feel free. Anyone can interpret the law; it doesnt make it any more or less law.

The point of the above is to highlight that by strict definition, people's constitutional rights are not absolute, and can be challenged in law.

Woody was pointing out that if you wouldnt trust someone with a steak knife in a restaurant (as a hyperbolic example), then there should be protections to ensure those same people dont have access to firearms. A lot of people argue this by saying it is a breach of their 2A rights. Yet the 2A rights are interpreted and upheld by law, and that law can change.

 

[thebigt]

Wouldnt bother me. Feel free. Anyone can interpret the law; it doesnt make it any more or less law.

The point of the above is to highlight that by strict definition, people's constitutional rights are not absolute, and can be challenged in law.

Woody was pointing out that if you wouldnt trust someone with a steak knife in a restaurant (as a hyperbolic example), then there should be protections to ensure those same people dont have access to firearms. A lot of people argue this by saying it is a breach of their 2A rights. Yet the 2A rights are interpreted and upheld by law, and that law can change.

so you are against steak knifes too?

 

[thebigt]

I’m pretty sure everyone commenting on this thread owns multiple firearms.

i asked you before what firearms you own?

 

[Jiigzz]

so you are against steak knifes too?

No, but I also dont think that was the point he was making.

 

[ax1]

The constitution doesnt take away rights, it grants them. The law takes away rights, in respect to the constitution.

The Constitution doesnt grant rights, they protect our natural rights. The law is you cant take people's natural rights.

 

[Jiigzz]

View attachment 196299

Hmmmm

12,000 deaths vs 160,000. Yep, comparable.

 

[ax1]

12,000 deaths vs 160,000. Yep, comparable.

And thats 150k with the extraordinary actions to help stop the spread put in place.

 

[thebigt]

No, but I also dont think that was the point he was making.

then he should be more clear, im stupid you know!!!