Who the F*** ties Obammys shoes in the Mornings?

[olevetonahill]

Dude is certifiable , Easier to buy guns than Lettuce, we want guns in kindergarten, and Machine guns in Bars.:apple:
Oh and in that clip ya can tell he aint got a Teleprompter:drunk:


http://news.yahoo.com/obama-claims-easier-buy-guns-books-vegetables-want-221625871.html

[SicEmBaylor]

I truly do detest that useless son of a bitch, and I say that as someone who gave him the benefit of the doubt early on. In fact, I was looking forward to seeing him implement his promises of protecting civil liberties and bringing more transparency to government. I have to sit around and laugh about that now......Christ.

[olevetonahill]

Yup

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

I truly do detest that useless son of a bitch, and I say that as someone who gave him the benefit of the doubt early on. In fact, I was looking forward to seeing him implement his promises of protecting civil liberties and bringing more transparency to government. I have to sit around and laugh about that now......Christ.What made you tend to believe him in the first place?

[SCOUT]

Mr. Obama, in which cities is it easier to buy guns and "clips" than it is to buy vegetables? What are those local governments doing to correct that?



Mr. Obama, who specifically is advocating for machine guns in bars?

Sadly, Responsible Journalist passed away 20 years ago.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Obammy! Obammy! I want to have your baby!

You also have to take into consideration peeps like this...

[SicEmBaylor]

What made you tend to believe him in the first place?

Because I had no reason not to believe him at that point. He also did some actual real work toward expanding transparency while in the Senate in partnership with Sen. Coburn. Not to mention that, ideologically speaking, both are principles that are squarely in his wheel house. So, I would say a combo of his work in the Senate and the fact that it would have been absolutely consistent with his beliefs.

[Sooner8th]

I truly do detest that useless son of a bitch.

Big surprise there...........

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Because I had no reason not to believe him at that point. He also did some actual real work toward expanding transparency while in the Senate in partnership with Sen. Coburn. Not to mention that, ideologically speaking, both are principles that are squarely in his wheel house. So, I would say a combo of his work in the Senate and the fact that it would have been absolutely consistent with his beliefs.Not being contentious, just curious. What made you think he was going to protect civil liberties? How did you think he would do that? How did he expand transparency? Believe me,I'm not giving you a difficult time, or even trying to.

[SicEmBaylor]

Not being contentious, just curious. What made you think he was going to protect civil liberties? How did you think he would do that? How did he expand transparency? Believe me,I'm not giving you a difficult time, or even trying to.

I assumed he would expand civil liberties based on his Senate record in opposing Federal actions that limit those liberties, and his statements through the 2008 campaign. Specifically, I hoped he would roll back many of the Bush era surveillance programs and veto the Patriot Act re-authorization. He did neither and has allowed the NSA to continue to expand its scope and capabilities.

The same is true on transparency. He promised a more transparent White House meaning more meetings and even negotiations with Congress would be transparent and in public view -- he made a similar promise when it came to crafting and negotiating the ACA. This would have been consistent with his 2008 campaign. He expanded transparency in the Senate by working with Sen. Coburn to put all Federal spending (aside from black projects, obviously) online into an easily searchable database allowing anyone to see where Federal money goes and who sponsored the earmarks for that spending.

For example, the Rice confirmation hearings left a fairly decent impression of Obama on me. Most members of the committee were showboating, but Obama asked pointed, direct, and relevant questions that should have been answered in kind; however, Rice did nothing but evade with a confrontational tone and attitude. She failed to answer his questions that deserved an answer for the American public.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

The things I noticed most about him were his promise to take down the coal industry, and his determination to put more regulations and penalties on the oil and gas industry, his desire to control the healthcare industry. His willingness for the govt. to own part of the auto industry, and micro-manage it. His vow to "transform America". His academic records have always been secretive, and his criticism of both both Christians and Jews, while downplaying Islam's continuing and expanding role in terrorism, have always caused me to distrust him.

[Sooner8th]

The things I noticed most about him were his promise to take down the coal industry, and his determination to put more regulations and penalties on the oil and gas industry, his desire to control the healthcare industry. His willingness for the govt. to own part of the auto industry, and micro-manage it. His vow to "transform America". His academic records have always been secretive, and his criticism of both both Christians and Jews, while downplaying Islam's continuing and expanding role in terrorism, have always caused me to distrust him.

You really need to look things up - you have taken a 12 second clip and made it part of your hatred and beliefs about obama _

In the clip, Obama says: “So if somebody wants to build a coal power plant, they can. It’s just that it will bankrupt them because they are going to be charged a huge sum for all that greenhouse gas that’s being emitted.”
On the surface, it seems pretty cut and dried. But it’s just a 12-second clip. What did Obama say in the rest of his answer?
This is what came before that statement, which was prompted by question asking how he squared his support for coal and his promise to limit greenhouse gas emissions, given that coal is considered such a pollutant.
“This notion of no coal, I think, is an illusion, because the fact of the matter is that right now, we are getting a lot of our energy from coal, and China is building a coal-fired plant once a week. So what we have to do then is we have to figure out how can we use coal without emitting greenhouse gases and carbon. And how can we sequester that carbon and capture it? If we can’t, then we’re going to still be working on alternatives.”

http://http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/fact-checker/wp/2014/10/08/the-repeated-claim-that-obama-vowed-to-bankrupt-coal-plants/
Remember cap and trade is a conservative republican idea.

Who bailed out the auto companies? BUSH started it. His "academic records have always been secretive" what are you looking for in there? Is this what you are talking about? You seem to be quoting straight from it -

http://www.westernjournalism.com/exclusive-investigative-reports/the-mystery-of-barack-obama-continues/

Birther crap and a "foreign source" paid for harvard? Doctored selective service cards? You people are nuts.

[yermom]

“As long as you can go on into some neighborhoods, and it’s easier for you to buy a firearm than it is for you to buy a book, there are neighborhoods where it’s easier for you to buy a handgun and clips than it is for you to buy a fresh vegetable,” Obama continued. “As long as that’s the case, we’re going to continue to see unnecessary violence.”

factually, this is likely correct. he didn't say city, he said neighborhood.

this is actually a big problem. there are lots of places were no decent business wants to open.

i'm sure it's easier in those areas to find someone to sell you a gun than some arugula or Charles Dickens.

the problem is, that has nothing to do with guns or gun control.

[yermom]

I assumed he would expand civil liberties based on his Senate record in opposing Federal actions that limit those liberties, and his statements through the 2008 campaign. Specifically, I hoped he would roll back many of the Bush era surveillance programs and veto the Patriot Act re-authorization. He did neither and has allowed the NSA to continue to expand its scope and capabilities.

The same is true on transparency. He promised a more transparent White House meaning more meetings and even negotiations with Congress would be transparent and in public view -- he made a similar promise when it came to crafting and negotiating the ACA. This would have been consistent with his 2008 campaign. He expanded transparency in the Senate by working with Sen. Coburn to put all Federal spending (aside from black projects, obviously) online into an easily searchable database allowing anyone to see where Federal money goes and who sponsored the earmarks for that spending.

For example, the Rice confirmation hearings left a fairly decent impression of Obama on me. Most members of the committee were showboating, but Obama asked pointed, direct, and relevant questions that should have been answered in kind; however, Rice did nothing but evade with a confrontational tone and attitude. She failed to answer his questions that deserved an answer for the American public.

W 2.0

[rock on sooner]

Dude is certifiable , Easier to buy guns than Lettuce, we want guns in kindergarten, and Machine guns in Bars.:apple:
Oh and in that clip ya can tell he aint got a Teleprompter:drunk:


http://news.yahoo.com/obama-claims-easier-buy-guns-books-vegetables-want-221625871.html

Coupla things here, and I'm not arguing one er tother...

Neighborhood...in big cities a neighborhood (Chicago comes to mind) is
two or three blocks long and is ethnic, that is, Italian or Bosnian or Latino
etc. and in some of those places you CAN'T buy a book or fresh veggies,
for whatever reason, now whether or not you can buy a firearm is another
topic. I know for a fact that illegal firearms are available in some areas,
just like drugs and/or hookers, but there sure isn't a book store around.

Here in Iowa, the NRA is alive and well! They are lobbying for a bill that
closes down public access to the list of CCP'ers. Law enforcement still has
access but, under this bill, John Q. Public wouldn't be able to find out if the
wingnut neighbor is carrying. There is also talk of allowing teachers, after
training, to be armed in some schools.

Now, I think Obama is talking about some isolated instances but they do exist.
And he is right about what happened after Sandy Hook and background checks
expansion efforts. NRA is firmly behind any and all those efforts.

Jus sayin....

[rock on sooner]

Yermom typed faster than I did....

[Sooner8th]

factually, this is likely correct. he didn't say city, he said neighborhood.

this is actually a big problem. there are lots of places were no decent business wants to open.

i'm sure it's easier in those areas to find someone to sell you a gun than some arugula or Charles Dickens.

the problem is, that has nothing to do with guns or gun control.

When is the last time conservatives let facts get in the way of a good outrage?

[Turd_Ferguson]

Here in Iowa, the NRA is alive and well! They are lobbying for a bill that
closes down public access to the list of CCP'ers. Law enforcement still has
access but, under this bill, John Q. Public wouldn't be able to find out if the
wingnut neighbor is carrying. There is also talk of allowing teachers, after
training, to be armed in some schools.

Jus sayin....


Ho Lee Chit! Where in the **** do you libs come up with your thought process?

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Ho Lee Chit! Where in the **** do you libs come up with your thought process?They do continue to amaze. 8th alone comes up with the most obtuse, strange and convoluted comments that are almost beyond imagination. Not to mention rock on, hawaii, prophet, diverdog, and sometimes yermom. There are others, of course.

[REDREX]

When is the last time conservatives let facts get in the way of a good outrage?---About the same time as Liberals did

[Sooner8th]

---About the same time as Liberals did

Your "facts" are all made up by beck, rush faux "news" world news daily. Ours are real.

[Sooner8th]

Ho Lee Chit! Where in the **** do you libs come up with your thought process?

What part of what rock on sooner posted is not true? Here in kansas they are wanting to be able to carry guns into bars and churches.

[Turd_Ferguson]

Your "facts" are all made up by beck, rush faux "news" world news daily. Ours are real.

lol

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Your "facts" are all made up by beck, rush faux "news" world news daily. Ours are real.I don't believe you believe what you said above. If you do, you're as screwed up as I stated in #19

[REDREX]

Your "facts" are all made up by beck, rush faux "news" world news daily. Ours are real.--You are brainwashed

[okie52]

Your "facts" are all made up by beck, rush faux "news" world news daily. Ours are real.

Did you miss Obama's 4 pinocchio's from the Washington Post?

[Sooner8th]

lol

Again - tell us all what rock on sooner said that is not true.

[rock on sooner]

Ho Lee Chit! Where in the **** do you libs come up with your thought process?

TF, if yer doubtin the NRA lobby, sorry, but as God is my witness, the post
is true and accurate...

[rock on sooner]

TF, if yer doubtin the NRA lobby, sorry, but as God is my witness, the post
is true and accurate...

TF, here's the link...www.iowapublicradio.org/post/gunrights.billadvances.....

[Turd_Ferguson]

TF, here's the link...www.iowapublicradio.org/post/gunrights.billadvances (http://www.iowapublicradio.org/post/gunrights.billadvances).....

Not doubting it. What I can't wrap my head around is peeps that think it's their business if I have a CCL.


ETA; the link shows "page not found".

[okie52]

Coupla things here, and I'm not arguing one er tother...

Neighborhood...in big cities a neighborhood (Chicago comes to mind) is
two or three blocks long and is ethnic, that is, Italian or Bosnian or Latino
etc. and in some of those places you CAN'T buy a book or fresh veggies,
for whatever reason, now whether or not you can buy a firearm is another
topic. I know for a fact that illegal firearms are available in some areas,
just like drugs and/or hookers, but there sure isn't a book store around.

Here in Iowa, the NRA is alive and well! They are lobbying for a bill that
closes down public access to the list of CCP'ers. Law enforcement still has
access but, under this bill, John Q. Public wouldn't be able to find out if the
wingnut neighbor is carrying. There is also talk of allowing teachers, after
training, to be armed in some schools.

Now, I think Obama is talking about some isolated instances but they do exist.
And he is right about what happened after Sandy Hook and background checks
expansion efforts. NRA is firmly behind any and all those efforts.

Jus sayin....

Remember this?


Newspaper Publishes Gun Owners’ Names and Addresses

By Colleen Curry
Dec 24, 2012 4:51pm

A newspaper in New York has received a wave of criticism from its readers after publishing the names and addresses of all of the individuals with handgun or pistol permits in its coverage area.

Hundreds of residents in New York’s Westchester and Rockland counties were surprised to find their names and addresses listed on a map posted by The Journal News on Sunday. Users can click any dot on the map to see which of their neighbors has a permit for a gun.

The map sparked more than 500 comments from readers within a day of its appearance on the website, many of them voicing outrage at the paper’s decision to make the information public.

“This is CRAZY!! why in the world would you post every licensed gun owner information?? What do you hope to accomplish by doing this. This is the type of thing you do for sex offenders not law abiding gun owners. What next? should i hang a flag outside my house that says I own a gun? I am canceling my subscription with your paper today!!!” said commenter Curtis Maenza.

“How about a map of the editorial staff and publishers of Gannett and Journal News with names and addresses of their families…,” wrote commenter George Thompson.

All of the names and addresses were compiled through public records. The paper also requested the information from Putnam County, which is still compiling the records for publication, according to The Journal News’ website.

In a statement to ABC News, The Journal News said its readers “are understandably interested to know about guns in their neighborhoods,” because of the conversation about gun control on its website after the shooting in Newtown, Conn., last week.

“We obtained the names and addresses of Westchester and Rockland residents who are licensed to own handguns through routine Freedom of Information law requests. We also requested information on the number and types of guns owned by permit holders, but officials in the county clerks offices in Westchester, Rockland and Putnam counties maintained that those specifics were not public record,” the statement read.

“New York’s top public-records expert, Robert Freeman, disagrees,” it added.

The paper declined to answer further questions about the map.

[okie52]

It was followed by this:


After Pinpointing Gun Owners, Paper Is a Target
By CHRISTINE HAUGHNEYJAN. 6, 2013


WHITE PLAINS — Local newspapers across the country look for stories that will bring them national attention, but The Journal News, a daily nestled in a wooded office park in a suburb north of New York, may have gotten more than it bargained for.

Two weeks ago, the paper published the names and addresses of handgun permit holders — a total of 33,614 — in two suburban counties, Westchester and Rockland, and put maps of their locations online. The maps, which appeared with the article “The Gun Owner Next Door: What You Don’t Know About the Weapons in Your Neighborhood,” received more than one million views on the Web site of The Journal News — more than twice as many as the paper’s previous record, about a councilman who had two boys arrested for running a cupcake stand.

But the article, which left gun owners feeling vulnerable to harassment or break-ins, also drew outrage from across the country. Calls and e-mails grew so threatening that the paper’s president and publisher, Janet Hasson, hired armed guards to monitor the newspaper’s headquarters in White Plains and its bureau in West Nyack, N.Y.

Personal information about editors and writers at the paper has been posted online, including their home addresses and information about where their children attended school; some reporters have received notes saying they would be shot on the way to their cars; bloggers have encouraged people to steal credit card information of Journal News employees; and two packages containing white powder have been sent to the newsroom and a third to a reporter’s home (all were tested by the police and proved to be harmless).

[Sooner8th]

It was followed by this:

What do those two article have to do with what rock on sooner posted not being true?

[okie52]

What do those two article have to do with what rock on sooner posted not being true?

I didn't say it had anything to do with rock's post being untrue. Read it again...if you're not an imposter you'll figure it out.

[Turd_Ferguson]

I didn't say it had anything to do with rock's post being untrue. Read it again...if you're not an imposter you'll figure it out.

LOL, I haven't seen anywhere in this thread that anybody is accusing Rock that the article wasn't true...Look at this dip$hit losing his mind about it...lmao.

[okie52]

LOL, I haven't seen anywhere in this thread that anybody is accusing Rock that the article wasn't true...Look at this dip$hit losing his mind about it...lmao.

LOL.

I've been contending for a couple days now that someone hacked 8th's account...after all, he is a man of integrity.

[Sooner8th]

LOL, I haven't seen anywhere in this thread that anybody is accusing Rock that the article wasn't true...Look at this dip$hit losing his mind about it...lmao.


Ho Lee Chit! Where in the **** do you libs come up with your thought process?

Then explain what you mean by thought process.

[rock on sooner]

Not doubting it. What I can't wrap my head around is peeps that think it's their business if I have a CCL.


ETA; the link shows "page not found".

Welp, sorry about that, I'm not real well versed on some of that
link stuff, I'd blame it on the keyboard, if I could....

Google "Iowa public radio and gun lobby"...first article is about
what I've been sayin'...

[Turd_Ferguson]

Welp, sorry about that, I'm not real well versed on some of that
link stuff, I'd blame it on the keyboard, if I could....

Google "Iowa public radio and gun lobby"...first article is about
what I've been sayin'...

Once again Rock, I'm not doubting the article. I'm saying I can't understand WTF you think it's your business who has a CCL.

[SicEmBaylor]

Once again Rock, I'm not doubting the article. I'm saying I can't understand WTF you think it's your business who has a CCL.

Not only is it not anyone's business who has a CCL/CHL -- they shouldn't exist in the first place. *All* Federal firearm laws ought to be abolished and all 50 states ought to adopt "constitutional carry." There's a Constitutional Carry bill in the Texas legislature right now authored by a guy whose former Chief of Staff is a good friend of mine. Hopefully it passes.

I take the position that any restriction on any weapon is untenable and unconstitutional. The point of the 2nd Amendment is to ensure the citizenry has the ability to abolish the existing government should it infringe upon the rights of the people and become too tyrannical. It's an insurance policy. In order to ensure we have that capability, the people need to have the potential to have as close to parity with the government as possible.

You want an MLRS parked in your backyard? Sweet! Just be careful with it.

[SicEmBaylor]

The only legitimate restriction on firearms should be for convicted felons who were found guilty of a violent crime involving a weapon.

[rock on sooner]

Once again Rock, I'm not doubting the article. I'm saying I can't understand WTF you think it's your business who has a CCL.

Oops, misunderstood your point all along, here's my reasoning (based
on personal experience) a neighbor four houses up from me was always
yakking about kids in the area doing such and such behind his house.
He talked about sneaking out and watching them...CARRYING HIS AR15!
Now, that's bad enough but I found out later (when his wife kicked him
to the curb) that he carried when he made house calls (he was an electrician),
since fired. I guess its my business to know who is around that can easily
become unhinged. I can at least be more cautious...can you agree?

[Sooner8th]

The only legitimate restriction on firearms should be for convicted felons who were found guilty of a violent crime involving a weapon.

You include nuclear weapons too right? I am all in favor of "constitutional carry" "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Are the first words in the second amendment and conservatives pretend it does not exist. So lets regulate away - all constitutional.

[SicEmBaylor]

You include nuclear weapons too right? I am all in favor of "constitutional carry" "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Are the first words in the second amendment and conservatives pretend it does not exist. So lets regulate away - all constitutional.

Well, and here's the thing, I've read the Constitution. I've read every note, journal, and diary taken during the Constitutional Convention. I've read the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist papers innumerable times. I spent more years than I care to admit in college studying constitutional and political theory.

So I say this with as much conviction as I can possibly muster: That interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is an absolute fabrication of the contemporary gun-control movement. In absolutely no way does that interpretation jive with the intent of the amendment based upon three primary factors: 1)Common sense, 2)Statements made by Madison and co., and 3)A proper understanding of the vernacular of the time.

The entire Bill of Rights were adopted out of fears that the enumerated powers limiting the power of the Federal government would not be enough to protect the liberty of the citizenry from Federal encroachment. Every single Amendment of the Bill of Rights was intended to limit the power of government and protect the rights of the people. The Revolutionary War had just been fought and won because individual citizens had access to weapons and ammunition that were put to good use. The colonial militia movement was extra-governmental organizations. They were not formally mustered by any government authority outside of the local community voluntarily coming together for mutual defense.

The word "regulate" within its proper historical context was not used as a term to mean "government regulation" -- its definition was "well ordered" or "properly implemented." In other words, the 2nd Amendment does two things: 1)Gives the right to bear arms to individual citizens and 2)A properly trained and mustered militia is necessary for the defense of liberty. 2 is not even necessary for 1 but 1 is certainly necessary for 2. In any case, it absolutely did not mean that only government has the right to issue firearms for the purpose of having a government regulated militia. That is absolute fantasy. Anyone who honestly believes that is the correct context knows very little of the political climate at the time and very little history. It astounds me that anyone could honestly believe that of the Bill of Rights, all of which protect the rights of individual citizens, the Framers turned around and gave government the very power to regulate firearms that would have made the Revolution they just fought absolutely impossible. If you believe that, you're depriving some village of its idiot.

[olevetonahill]

There be a ton of Lib idiots here.
8th and the others , heres the Deal Yer Boy Obammy said Guns need to GO. and Yall back him !:devilish:

[Sooner8th]

Well, and here's the thing, I've read the Constitution. I've read every note, journal, and diary taken during the Constitutional Convention. I've read the Federalist Papers and Anti-Federalist papers innumerable times. I spent more years than I care to admit in college studying constitutional and political theory.

So I say this with as much conviction as I can possibly muster: That interpretation of the 2nd Amendment is an absolute fabrication of the contemporary gun-control movement. In absolutely no way does that interpretation jive with the intent of the amendment based upon three primary factors: 1)Common sense, 2)Statements made by Madison and co., and 3)A proper understanding of the vernacular of the time.

The entire Bill of Rights were adopted out of fears that the enumerated powers limiting the power of the Federal government would not be enough to protect the liberty of the citizenry from Federal encroachment. Every single Amendment of the Bill of Rights was intended to limit the power of government and protect the rights of the people. The Revolutionary War had just been fought and won because individual citizens had access to weapons and ammunition that were put to good use. The colonial militia movement was extra-governmental organizations. They were not formally mustered by any government authority outside of the local community voluntarily coming together for mutual defense.

The word "regulate" within its proper historical context was not used as a term to mean "government regulation" -- its definition was "well ordered" or "properly implemented." In other words, the 2nd Amendment does two things: 1)Gives the right to bear arms to individual citizens and 2)A properly trained and mustered militia is necessary for the defense of liberty. 2 is not even necessary for 1 but 1 is certainly necessary for 2. In any case, it absolutely did not mean that only government has the right to issue firearms for the purpose of having a government regulated militia. That is absolute fantasy. Anyone who honestly believes that is the correct context knows very little of the political climate at the time and very little history. It astounds me that anyone could honestly believe that of the Bill of Rights, all of which protect the rights of individual citizens, the Framers turned around and gave government the very power to regulate firearms that would have made the Revolution they just fought absolutely impossible. If you believe that, you're depriving some village of its idiot.

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you say you are a strict constitutionalist then you want to go to "every note, journal, and diary taken during the Constitutional Convention". The constitution is very clear. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You speak of knowing history and context of the constitution - but what you ignore is the development of weapons. When the constitution was written the rifle you took into battle was the same rifle you used to hunt game with. Show me where any of the notes, journals, and diary's where they gave the right to have a cannon. No one is talking about the government issuing the weapons - we are talking about "A well regulated Militia" Times and technology have changed.

You didn't answer the question - does a citizen have the right to a nuclear weapon?

[okie52]

So cannons work for you 8th?

[olevetonahill]

So cannons work for you 8th?

That Idiot is doing what he always does(8th that is) Spin,twist and deflect!

Stay on topic Obammy is a ****ing idiot. and Cant string 3 sentences together with out a Teleprompter.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

So cannons work for you 8th?Put your money on flamethrowers.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

Stay on topic Obammy is a ****ing idiot. and Cant string 3 sentences together with out a Teleprompter.Better proof to me is what he thinks of America, and what he's doing to us.

[SicEmBaylor]

You are talking out of both sides of your mouth. On one hand you say you are a strict constitutionalist then you want to go to "every note, journal, and diary taken during the Constitutional Convention". The constitution is very clear. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You speak of knowing history and context of the constitution - but what you ignore is the development of weapons. When the constitution was written the rifle you took into battle was the same rifle you used to hunt game with. Show me where any of the notes, journals, and diary's where they gave the right to have a cannon. No one is talking about the government issuing the weapons - we are talking about "A well regulated Militia" Times and technology have changed.

You didn't answer the question - does a citizen have the right to a nuclear weapon?

lol, I wasn't speaking out of both sides of my mouth in any shape, form, or fashion. I was pointing out that the men who wrote and were responsible for ratification of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, agreed with my interpretation. I also pointed out a person would have to be a complete blithering idiot to accept your interpretation of the 2nd given the historical context, the meaning of the word 'regulate' at the time it was used, Framer intent, and common sense.

Now, as for changing weaponry, the advancement of technology absolutely positively does not matter in any possible way. More advanced firearms doesn't change the fact that an armed citizenry is necessary in order to ensure the individual can protect themselves from outside threat whether that threat be from other citizens or their government. The latter threat being the most dangerous to liberty -- make no mistake, we are only free so long as the individual is capable of maintaining that freedom from an ever encroaching and tyrannical government.

Should someone be allowed to own a nuke? That's such a classic "reductio ad absurdum" argument. It is absolutely impossible for someone to mine their own uranium/plutonium, produce heavy water, enrich the material, etc. etc. in order to even build a damned nuke. But I'll play along and say, yes, if someone manages to actually do that then fine by me.

[Sooner8th]

lol, I wasn't speaking out of both sides of my mouth in any shape, form, or fashion. I was pointing out that the men who wrote and were responsible for ratification of the Bill of Rights, including the 2nd Amendment, agreed with my interpretation. I also pointed out a person would have to be a complete blithering idiot to accept your interpretation of the 2nd given the historical context, the meaning of the word 'regulate' at the time it was used, Framer intent, and common sense.Now, as for changing weaponry, the advancement of technology absolutely positively does not matter in any possible way. More advanced firearms doesn't change the fact that an armed citizenry is necessary in order to ensure the individual can protect themselves from outside threat whether that threat be from other citizens or their government. The latter threat being the most dangerous to liberty -- make no mistake, we are only free so long as the individual is capable of maintaining that freedom from an ever encroaching and tyrannical government.Should someone be allowed to own a nuke? That's such a classic "reductio ad absurdum" argument. It is absolutely impossible for someone to mine their own uranium/plutonium, produce heavy water, enrich the material, etc. etc. in order to even build a damned nuke. But I'll play along and say, yes, if someone manages to actually do that then fine by me.Of course you were. You want a strict interruption of the constitution, right up to it you think it benefits you to go dig up journals and diaries or whatever to prove your point. The CONSTITUTION says "A WELL REGULATED MILITIA" the first words in the second amendment. Argue that is not true. You try to present yourself as so expert of historical facts, but you have proven yourself to not firm grip of historical facts when you claimed Fort Sumter was fired upon because Lincoln called up troops - when the fact and reality is that the troops were called up AFTER Fort Sumter was fired upon. You and the rest of southern apologists refuse to admit that as a FACT.

[olevetonahill]

And of course Yall let the Moranic Dildo breathed Troll continue to spin twist, and deflect the thread.

[RUSH LIMBAUGH is my clone!]

And of course Yall let the Moranic Dildo breathed Troll continue to spin twist, and deflect the thread.Choose not to take a steady diet of that.

[olevetonahill]

Choose not to take a steady diet of that.

Hell I have the Moran on Iggy yet i can see other folks quotein him and arguing the 2nd with him. Dudes is as Idiotic as Obammy if he wants to keep arguin the 2nd. The SCOTUS pretty much settled that issue .

[FaninAma]

Hitler, Mao Tse Tung, Stalin, Lenin, Pol Pot. What was the common charateristic of the countries that these dictators terrorized?

[TheHumanAlphabet]

What a dumb fvck! Few guns use clips, the one that comes to mind a M1 Garand. I am sure there are others. Most guns use magazines. Again, what a dumb fvck and dumb fvck press.

[Turd_Ferguson]

What a dumb fvck! Few guns use clips, the one that comes to mind a M1 Garand. I am sure there are others. Most guns use magazines. Again, what a dumb fvck and dumb fvck press.

SKS. First time I used one I liked to lost my thumb from that bolt that seems like it has a 600# spring on it. :D

[olevetonahill]

SKS. First time I used one I liked to lost my thumb from that bolt that seems like it has a 600# spring on it. :D

Yup fer the Morans who aint got a Clue This is a Stripper clip used on the SKS as Turd mentioned
http://www.cheesepatrol.com/images/sks/sks4.jpg


This is a MAGAZINE used on Semi and Full auto loaders.

https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSMP4qlnvW3Lze1xJyayVESFVUieidk_ c5pAz-sdccTd8HwQBrQ

[TheHumanAlphabet]

SKS. First time I used one I liked to lost my thumb from that bolt that seems like it has a 600# spring on it. :D
They don't call ir M1 thumb or Garand thumb for nothing...