RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment

Join Our Community

Collarchat.com

Home Login Search

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment

Page: << < prev 23 24 [25] 26 27 next > >>

Login

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/17/2017 1:05:24 PM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

I'm still waiting to find out who they say is responsible for reporting all of the illegal aliens to be 'registered' in the 'database'. I suppose it would fall on anyone who knows them... family, friends, neighbors, etc. I wonder what the penalty should be for failure to report them.

Turn the whole county into spies for the government.
Kind of like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Exactly... that's what i meant when i said "slippery slope".

Slippery slope my great grandmother's ass.

Unless the law is changed, and god knows with the last decade of mass shootings, it could have been attempted and as of now, no attempts have been made, there is no slippery slope, the part directly affecting people who are unbalanced emotionally or mentally, is still subject to the ruling of a judge or, if they have been institutionalized for violent behavior that has endangered others, as in by a family member.

There have been repeated attemps,just because they failed doesn't mean they didn't happen.

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to jlf1961)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/17/2017 1:08:51 PM

BamaD

Posts: 20687
Joined: 2/27/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

I'm still waiting to find out who they say is responsible for reporting all of the illegal aliens to be 'registered' in the 'database'. I suppose it would fall on anyone who knows them... family, friends, neighbors, etc. I wonder what the penalty should be for failure to report them.

Turn the whole county into spies for the government.
Kind of like Nazi Germany and the Soviet Union.

Exactly... that's what i meant when i said "slippery slope".

Slippery slope my great grandmother's ass.

Unless the law is changed, and god knows with the last decade of mass shootings, it could have been attempted and as of now, no attempts have been made, there is no slippery slope, the part directly affecting people who are unbalanced emotionally or mentally, is still subject to the ruling of a judge or, if they have been institutionalized for violent behavior that has endangered others, as in by a family member.

What about someone who threatens violent behavior? Or says they are considering it?

Like the person on here who's only problem with the person who attacked
Rep. Congressmen was that he was a bad shot?

_____________________________

Government ranges from a necessary evil to an intolerable one. Thomas Paine

People don't believe they can defend themselves because they have guns, they have guns because they believe they can defend themselves.

(in reply to tamaka)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/17/2017 1:26:15 PM

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

What about someone who threatens violent behavior? Or says they are considering it?

Communicating Threats if: (1) he willfully threatens to physically injure the person or that person’s child, sibling, spouse, or dependent or willfully threatens to damage the property of another; (2) the threat is communicated to the other person, orally, in writing, or by any other means; (3) the threat is made in a manner and under circumstances which would cause a reasonable person to believe that the threat is likely to be carried out; and (4) the person threatened believes that the threat will be carried out. Communicating threats is a Class 1 misdemeanor. The maximum punishment is 120 days imprisonment.

Pretty much the standard wording in every state, which, depending on the circumstances can be elevated to a felony, which is a completely different law, in which case, they are prohibited from buying a firearm simply by the fact they are a convicted felon.

As far as considering a violent act, there is no law against consideration, only if you transmit the threat in writing, spoken word, or in the age of the internet and smart phones, electronic message.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to tamaka)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/17/2017 1:54:34 PM

Posts: 5079
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

What about someone who threatens violent behavior? Or says they are considering it?

Communicating Threats if: (1) he willfully threatens to physically injure the person or that person’s child, sibling, spouse, or dependent or willfully threatens to damage the property of another; (2) the threat is communicated to the other person, orally, in writing, or by any other means; (3) the threat is made in a manner and under circumstances which would cause a reasonable person to believe that the threat is likely to be carried out; and (4) the person threatened believes that the threat will be carried out. Communicating threats is a Class 1 misdemeanor. The maximum punishment is 120 days imprisonment.

Pretty much the standard wording in every state, which, depending on the circumstances can be elevated to a felony, which is a completely different law, in which case, they are prohibited from buying a firearm simply by the fact they are a convicted felon.

As far as considering a violent act, there is no law against consideration, only if you transmit the threat in writing, spoken word, or in the age of the internet and smart phones, electronic message.

So should someone like Madonna, who wanted to blow up the White House be on the list?

(in reply to jlf1961)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/17/2017 2:07:14 PM

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

What about someone who threatens violent behavior? Or says they are considering it?

Communicating Threats if: (1) he willfully threatens to physically injure the person or that person’s child, sibling, spouse, or dependent or willfully threatens to damage the property of another; (2) the threat is communicated to the other person, orally, in writing, or by any other means; (3) the threat is made in a manner and under circumstances which would cause a reasonable person to believe that the threat is likely to be carried out; and (4) the person threatened believes that the threat will be carried out. Communicating threats is a Class 1 misdemeanor. The maximum punishment is 120 days imprisonment.

Pretty much the standard wording in every state, which, depending on the circumstances can be elevated to a felony, which is a completely different law, in which case, they are prohibited from buying a firearm simply by the fact they are a convicted felon.

As far as considering a violent act, there is no law against consideration, only if you transmit the threat in writing, spoken word, or in the age of the internet and smart phones, electronic message.

So should someone like Madonna, who wanted to blow up the White House be on the list?

You really are grasping at straws arent you?

Legally speaking, for something to be considered a credible threat against a person, place or building, the words "Ive thought about blowing up <or whatever act>" do not constitute a threat, since they do not actually state intent.

For someone so critical of other's intelligence, you sure post some rather bone headed stupid shit.

You see, one must state intent, under the law to be guilty of communicating a threat, or bombing a building, or whatever. Intent is the key point, since one cannot be arrested, tried and convicted of a thought.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to tamaka)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/17/2017 3:14:12 PM

Posts: 5079
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

What about someone who threatens violent behavior? Or says they are considering it?

Communicating Threats if: (1) he willfully threatens to physically injure the person or that person’s child, sibling, spouse, or dependent or willfully threatens to damage the property of another; (2) the threat is communicated to the other person, orally, in writing, or by any other means; (3) the threat is made in a manner and under circumstances which would cause a reasonable person to believe that the threat is likely to be carried out; and (4) the person threatened believes that the threat will be carried out. Communicating threats is a Class 1 misdemeanor. The maximum punishment is 120 days imprisonment.

Pretty much the standard wording in every state, which, depending on the circumstances can be elevated to a felony, which is a completely different law, in which case, they are prohibited from buying a firearm simply by the fact they are a convicted felon.

As far as considering a violent act, there is no law against consideration, only if you transmit the threat in writing, spoken word, or in the age of the internet and smart phones, electronic message.

So should someone like Madonna, who wanted to blow up the White House be on the list?

You really are grasping at straws arent you?

Legally speaking, for something to be considered a credible threat against a person, place or building, the words "Ive thought about blowing up <or whatever act>" do not constitute a threat, since they do not actually state intent.

For someone so critical of other's intelligence, you sure post some rather bone headed stupid shit.

You see, one must state intent, under the law to be guilty of communicating a threat, or bombing a building, or whatever. Intent is the key point, since one cannot be arrested, tried and convicted of a thought.

I'm not grasping at anything, i was trying to have a conversation.

(in reply to jlf1961)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/17/2017 4:54:32 PM

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

I'm not grasping at anything, i was trying to have a conversation.

To have a conversation, you need to have some grasp of the topic, and with your statements, I cant tell if you have a grasp of anything even remotely applicable to the topic.

You do not grasp the basic concepts in the legal facts, such as what actually constitutes making a threat, nor have you explained why one group of people has a higher right to privacy than others.

Not to mention I have yet to see you retract that stupid statement 'some innocent people dying is worth the price of private fire arm ownership."

While nothing can be done about criminals illegally in position of a firearm, except severe punishment when caught, hence the stacking of firearm charges over and above whatever charge they were originally busted for, there is something that can be done to prevent some nut job from going to a school and shooting fellow students or a bunch of first grade kids.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to tamaka)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/17/2017 5:30:40 PM

Posts: 5079
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

I'm not grasping at anything, i was trying to have a conversation.

To have a conversation, you need to have some grasp of the topic, and with your statements, I cant tell if you have a grasp of anything even remotely applicable to the topic.

You do not grasp the basic concepts in the legal facts, such as what actually constitutes making a threat, nor have you explained why one group of people has a higher right to privacy than others.

Not to mention I have yet to see you retract that stupid statement 'some innocent people dying is worth the price of private fire arm ownership."

While nothing can be done about criminals illegally in position of a firearm, except severe punishment when caught, hence the stacking of firearm charges over and above whatever charge they were originally busted for, there is something that can be done to prevent some nut job from going to a school and shooting fellow students or a bunch of first grade kids.

Have you ever seen Arlington Cemetary?

(in reply to jlf1961)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/17/2017 5:37:45 PM

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

I'm not grasping at anything, i was trying to have a conversation.

To have a conversation, you need to have some grasp of the topic, and with your statements, I cant tell if you have a grasp of anything even remotely applicable to the topic.

You do not grasp the basic concepts in the legal facts, such as what actually constitutes making a threat, nor have you explained why one group of people has a higher right to privacy than others.

Not to mention I have yet to see you retract that stupid statement 'some innocent people dying is worth the price of private fire arm ownership."

While nothing can be done about criminals illegally in position of a firearm, except severe punishment when caught, hence the stacking of firearm charges over and above whatever charge they were originally busted for, there is something that can be done to prevent some nut job from going to a school and shooting fellow students or a bunch of first grade kids.

Have you ever seen Arlington Cemetary?

Yeah, 25 men I served with are buried there, as well as two grandfathers, three uncles, and one great grandfather.

And if you are even going to attempt to put those men and women in the same category as some unarmed first grader being killed by a nut job, you are even lower than I gave you credit for.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to tamaka)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/17/2017 5:44:33 PM

Posts: 5079
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961

quote:

ORIGINAL: tamaka

I'm not grasping at anything, i was trying to have a conversation.

To have a conversation, you need to have some grasp of the topic, and with your statements, I cant tell if you have a grasp of anything even remotely applicable to the topic.

You do not grasp the basic concepts in the legal facts, such as what actually constitutes making a threat, nor have you explained why one group of people has a higher right to privacy than others.

Not to mention I have yet to see you retract that stupid statement 'some innocent people dying is worth the price of private fire arm ownership."

While nothing can be done about criminals illegally in position of a firearm, except severe punishment when caught, hence the stacking of firearm charges over and above whatever charge they were originally busted for, there is something that can be done to prevent some nut job from going to a school and shooting fellow students or a bunch of first grade kids.

Have you ever seen Arlington Cemetary?

Yeah, 25 men I served with are buried there, as well as two grandfathers, three uncles, and one great grandfather.

And if you are even going to attempt to put those men and women in the same category as some unarmed first grader being killed by a nut job, you are even lower than I gave you credit for.

No. Try to expand your mind/thinking a bit.

(in reply to jlf1961)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/17/2017 6:09:29 PM

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

I have seen people die first hand, in combat, and I have had the misfortune of being first on the scene of domestic violence calls, murders, rapes and will say this, the death of an innocent or a young man just married and expecting his first kid is not something one forgets, try as they might to do so.

So, if there is already a law that should prevent someone who is mentally or emotionally unstable from purchasing a gun, I am all for that information being passed to the appropriate agencies to prevent that person from buying a gun.

Arlington National Cemetery has zero to do with the private ownership of guns, but everything to do with those people willing to put their lives on the line so that others dont have to.

So, I do suggest you find some other option to try to make your point.

I have been a cop, and know first hand that if some criminal wants a gun, they will get one, regardless of what the 'more gun laws' proponents want to believe. It is big news when a drug shipment is intercepted at some airport, port or coming across the border, but neither the liberal or conservative press mentions the number of illegal arms shipments that have been stopped.

These same people think that you need a special machine to make gun parts, a popular myth. Just about any machine shop can turn out every part needed for everything from a 9mm pistol to a freaking belt fed machine gun, the specs needed to program the machines are on the internet.

But, the thing that I am going to find really funny is when some bright individual with the ability, time and desire for money takes the 'toy' DIY rail guns you find the instructions for all over the damn internet and decides to start a cottage business making the damn things. The Navy already proved that a rapid fire unit is possible.

And before you say a rail gun is too complex, here are working models.

Nor do I need to remind everyone that the seed product for the company that became Apple was a neat device that played specific tones that allowed people to make free, extended long distance phone calls.

So, yeah, they may be big and bulky, but hey, a cheap gun that can drive a round through an engine block, or wall protecting cops....

Someone will do it, it is only a matter of time.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to tamaka)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/18/2017 4:25:17 AM

Posts: 3623
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
They believe in trickle down criminology.

Yes, making guns more difficult to get is the very definition of cruel and inhuman punishment.
I am surprised that the United Nations isn't proposing a humanitarian intervention due to the librul threat in the US, because it's frankly really terrifying.

Stay strong and be careful out there.

Should we take away the right of speech, the right to vote, the emancipation, or the right to privacy? Which rights do you believe we shouldn't have?

Who needs any of them, we should have total trust is government, as long as they are liberal. sarcasm font off.

Oh, obviously we should have the right to do anything we want. Feed heroin to your toddler, run a gorilla brothel, build nuclear weapons in your garage.
It's your God-given right, and anyone who disagrees is a fascist.

FFS are you actually comparing gun ownership to VOTING???
You people are seriously deranged.

(in reply to BamaD)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/18/2017 4:59:07 AM

Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
They believe in trickle down criminology.

Yes, making guns more difficult to get is the very definition of cruel and inhuman punishment.
I am surprised that the United Nations isn't proposing a humanitarian intervention due to the librul threat in the US, because it's frankly really terrifying.

Stay strong and be careful out there.

Should we take away the right of speech, the right to vote, the emancipation, or the right to privacy? Which rights do you believe we shouldn't have?

Who needs any of them, we should have total trust is government, as long as they are liberal. sarcasm font off.

Oh, obviously we should have the right to do anything we want. Feed heroin to your toddler, run a gorilla brothel, build nuclear weapons in your garage.
It's your God-given right, and anyone who disagrees is a fascist.

FFS are you actually comparing gun ownership to VOTING???
You people are seriously deranged.

What else do you expect? All they have on this issue is hyperbole and hysteria.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to heavyblinker)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/18/2017 5:21:05 AM

Posts: 3623
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods
What else do you expect? All they have on this issue is hyperbole and hysteria.

It is seriously impossible to have a discussion when people won't even accept something for what it is.
Not owning a gun isn't even remotely equal to not having privacy, not being allowed to vote, not being allowed to protest, etc.
And AGAIN we are incapable of separating tighter regulations from a total ban.

It just goes around and around like this.

(in reply to WhoreMods)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/18/2017 6:58:43 AM

Posts: 14840
Joined: 6/10/2008
From: Somewhere Texas
Status: offline

Because, unless the flaws in the present law are addressed and fixed, tighter regulations will not work which would then lead to an outright ban.

And the right to privacy concerning those who would be prohibited according to the 49 year old law argument is bullshit. SCOTUS has ruled that the right to privacy does not apply when there is an issue of safety to the general public, and did so when the sex offender registration laws went into effect which made the home addresses of sex offenders accessible to the general public.

So that argument is settled.

And when people like tamaka get that through there thick skulls, and realize the right to privacy is not worth another Sandy Hook or Virginia Tech, then things will improve.

FYI, while it is not a law preventing multiple purchases over a given period, there is a procedure where by the ATF is supposed to inquire as to the reason for buying more than a reasonable amount of fire arms over a given period, unless the firearms purchased fall into the category of collectors items.

_____________________________

Boy, it sure would be nice if we had some grenades, don't you think?

You cannot control who comes into your life, but you can control which airlock you throw them out of.

Paranoid Paramilitary Gun Loving Conspiracy Theorist AND EQUAL OPPORTUNI

(in reply to heavyblinker)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/18/2017 7:05:12 AM

Posts: 3623
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: jlf1961
Because, unless the flaws in the present law are addressed and fixed, tighter regulations will not work which would then lead to an outright ban.

Exactly why do you think an outright ban on all guns is the natural result of a failed background check system?

Given America's gun culture and the strong influence of the NRA on the right, I really can't see a gun ban ever ever ever taking place.
I am frankly amazed at how all the gun people are so sure it's just around the corner.

I have also noticed that nobody has even bothered to respond to the idea of a Canada-style license-to-own.
I doubt that will ever happen just like I doubt the current system will ever be repaired, but at the very least it makes sense to me.

(in reply to jlf1961)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/18/2017 7:49:52 AM

Posts: 10691
Joined: 5/6/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
Given America's gun culture and the strong influence of the NRA on the right, I really can't see a gun ban ever ever ever taking place.
I am frankly amazed at how all the gun people are so sure it's just around the corner.

Hysteria about strawmen: it's a lot easier to complain about something draconian that isn't being (and hasn't ever been) proposed than something reasonable (and doable) that has been. The NRA are hardly the only single issue group to have been co-opted by the right who've noticed how well that approach works for the lunatic fringe of the republicans, after all.

_____________________________

On the level and looking for a square deal.

(in reply to heavyblinker)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/18/2017 8:01:05 AM

Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
They believe in trickle down criminology.

Yes, making guns more difficult to get is the very definition of cruel and inhuman punishment.
I am surprised that the United Nations isn't proposing a humanitarian intervention due to the librul threat in the US, because it's frankly really terrifying.

Stay strong and be careful out there.

Should we take away the right of speech, the right to vote, the emancipation, or the right to privacy? Which rights do you believe we shouldn't have?

Who needs any of them, we should have total trust is government, as long as they are liberal. sarcasm font off.

Oh, obviously we should have the right to do anything we want. Feed heroin to your toddler, run a gorilla brothel, build nuclear weapons in your garage.
It's your God-given right, and anyone who disagrees is a fascist.

FFS are you actually comparing gun ownership to VOTING???
You people are seriously deranged.

No, but your hissy fit while saying so is amusing Google boy.

(in reply to heavyblinker)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/18/2017 8:02:56 AM

Posts: 3623
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD

quote:

ORIGINAL: Nnanji

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker

quote:

ORIGINAL: BamaD
They believe in trickle down criminology.

Yes, making guns more difficult to get is the very definition of cruel and inhuman punishment.
I am surprised that the United Nations isn't proposing a humanitarian intervention due to the librul threat in the US, because it's frankly really terrifying.

Stay strong and be careful out there.

Should we take away the right of speech, the right to vote, the emancipation, or the right to privacy? Which rights do you believe we shouldn't have?

Who needs any of them, we should have total trust is government, as long as they are liberal. sarcasm font off.

Oh, obviously we should have the right to do anything we want. Feed heroin to your toddler, run a gorilla brothel, build nuclear weapons in your garage.
It's your God-given right, and anyone who disagrees is a fascist.

FFS are you actually comparing gun ownership to VOTING???
You people are seriously deranged.

No, but your hissy fit while saying so is amusing Google boy.

Fucking hell, is this what old people do nowadays?
Come online and desperately try to pick fights with people?

Aren't you embarrassed that this is what your life has become?

(in reply to Nnanji)

RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment - 10/18/2017 8:04:12 AM

Posts: 4552
Joined: 3/29/2016
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: WhoreMods

quote:

ORIGINAL: heavyblinker
Given America's gun culture and the strong influence of the NRA on the right, I really can't see a gun ban ever ever ever taking place.
I am frankly amazed at how all the gun people are so sure it's just around the corner.

Hysteria about strawmen: it's a lot easier to complain about something draconian that isn't being (and hasn't ever been) proposed than something reasonable (and doable) that has been. The NRA are hardly the only single issue group to have been co-opted by the right who've noticed how well that approach works for the lunatic fringe of the republicans, after all.

And your projections show just how deeply troubled you are.

(in reply to WhoreMods)

Page: << < prev 23 24 [25] 26 27 next > >>

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion >> RE: The original arguments FOR the second amendment

Page: << < prev 23 24 [25] 26 27 next > >>

Jump to:

New Messages	No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages	Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages	Locked w/o New Messages

Post New Thread

Reply to Message

Post New Poll

Submit Vote

Delete My Own Post

Delete My Own Thread

Rate Posts

Collarchat.com © 2024

Terms of Service

0.090