...
YOU SAID SOMETHING NAUGHTY. NO, I DIDN'T.
- Thread starter Grosnick Marowbe
- Start date
- Status
The truth is the truth no matter who says it or their motivation behind it.
Someone's been playing with his GI Joe dolls a bit too much.
:chuckle:
Last edited:
I'm really sorry that you've taken my 4 part thread on the recrimnalization of homosexuality so hard Grosnick. As I've mentioned time and time again: The thread is not about those who are struggling with homosexual desires and attempting to overcome them, it's about proud and unrepentant homosexuals who amongst other things indoctrinate children.
I wish the very best for you Grosnick. If you go to the 1st page index of Part 4, there are many links where you can find help.
God bless.
:chuckle:
Last edited:
What I'm about to say will annoy ACW, however, I'm speaking the truth. When I receive my ballots, I go straight down the line voting for Republicans only. Don't even bother to notice their name. I feel our country is in safer hands with Republicans at the helm.
Again: Your issue isn't with me or other constitutional conservatives, but with God.
:chuckle:
DavidK
New member
Wait a second. It doesn't say "guns", it says "arms". Why are you limiting to guns, rather than all kinds of armament?
I don't see felony conviction, domestic violence, or mental instability mentioned in the second amendment. Why are they exceptions to "cannot get involved with gun ownsership, period"?
:wave2:
You're basically just trying to trivialize the amendment to justify gun restriction, and that is why people as yourself need to just stay clear away from the Constitution.
DavidK
New member
I'm trying to demonstrate that some interpretation is required, even from the most committed gun-freedom advocates. It is impossible for you or anyone to claim that the amendment prohibits any and all federal laws restricting the ownership of weaponry.
Once you admit that there have to be some exceptions like weapons that far exceed guns in destructive power and people who are not mentally responsible enough to bear a weapon, the discussion can move past "but the second amendment!" to "how far can the government go in regulating gun ownership and not violate the spirit of the second amendment."
You've clearly stated where you think those boundaries are, but they are not contained in the amendment, and are thus open for discussion. That discussion requires appealing to reason beyond the amendment, and it is impossible to honestly retreat back into the amendment to shut the discussion down.
'Federal laws' cannot touch arms ownership, as the amendment is for the security of a free state. So you need to drop that notion altogether.
As far as local laws, I've already listed the primary disqualifications, and you are basically saying "since they are restrictions, why stop there"- which basically annuls the spirit of the amendment itself.
In the UK, it's become almost impossible for the average citizen to own a gun, but they don't tell the world that- they let people assume that nobody there wants to be armed or enunciate on mere gun registration to distract from that reality.
That's the domino effect of 'gun control'.
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
It's not "become" that way, the UK has never had a 'gun culture' the likes of across the pond and the laws in relation are hardly some 'secret' in that regard either. The fact that many countries don't have anything like your gun laws or culture is hardly classified by the same token. You know as much about European culture as you do about women. In fact it would surprise me if you could point to any given country besides America on a map frankly.
Stupid little kid, go do some homework.
DavidK
New member
You really are bound and determined to tell me what I'm saying.
I'm saying that everyone agrees there have to be some restrictions. I'm saying that leaves a discussion open as to those limits. No felons and no mentally handicap seem very reasonable. They aren't, however, part of the amendment, so something apart from the amendment has to decide what level of gun control is reasonable.
Yep, some places have very extensive gun control. You can't, however, argue that any amount of gun control is a slippery slope to complete bans, because you yourself state that a minimum of gun control is necessary.
Nowhere in this discussion have I said I want more gun control than we have. My initial response was to a post in which you seem to be saying that any and all limits violate the 2nd amendment. I just wanted to find out if that's what you were truly saying, and am glad you have clarified that there have to be some limits.
'the right to bear arms shall not be infringed'
Infringe- act so as to limit or undermine; encroach on
It's funny that a liberal will jump through leaps and bounds with literal semantics on just about anything- except the Constitution
Typical liberal statement 1: "Because I don't like you, you don't know anything about *that*"
Typical liberal statement 2: "You weren't 100% right on a trivial point, therefore you don't know anything about anything"
Typical liberal statement 3: "Gun culture"
Typical liberal is typical
And there you go bringing up women, because as a UK male, your surrender means you don't have one of these things rolling through your neighborhood:
Your country has been seized by that^, and you want to tell me I don't know anything about women :rotfl:
Arthur Brain
Well-known member
Typical liberal statement 1: "Because I don't like you, you don't know anything about *that*"
Typical liberal statement 2: "You weren't 100% right on a trivial point, therefore you don't know anything about anything"
Typical liberal statement 3: "Gun culture"
Typical liberal is typical
And there you go bringing up women, because as a UK male, your surrender means you don't have one of these things rolling through your neighborhood:
Your country has been seized by that^, and you want to tell me I don't know anything about women :rotfl:
Dude, you've typically shown yourself to be a clueless pompous blowhard of a child with a huuuuuuuuuuuuuuge hang up with women for ages, so when you come out with yet more garbage that you've invented up in that deluded 'brain' of yours it comes as no surprise to anyone I'm sure.
You don't know anything about the UK, and you don't know anything about women. Your last statement above is just plain gibberish. (Well ok, all of it was)
'Surrender'? I haven't 'surrendered' anything ya silly little boy. On that note I'm done with your bonkers declarations and obvious hatred of the opposite sex. Hopefully one day you'll grow up and look back at your adolescent days here with embarrassment.
Good post
Hillary is a lying felon, an adulterous man hater whose "experience" in government is all bad and FAILED. Go ponder evolution why don't you
commonsense
Active member
Don't you think you're being a little bit harsh...I mean really...
What's your opinion of this dear Lady?
- Status