Active Shooter Killed At Nashville School

I do not believe citizens should have access to automatic weapons and/or military grade weapons -
outside of the context of a well regulated militia

I'm all for citizens having access within the context of a well regulated militia,

In which case you would start crying about them as well.
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
I feel that you open a hole for the Luthers of the world to drive their gun grabbing agenda through when you tie the 2 sections together in anyway.
My belief is that they are intentionally being disingenuous. They don't actually believe what they claim. If they did then they don't know how commas work, what our founders said regarding citizens freedoms, and foolishly think a group of men, who felt the need to over throw an oppressive government, would turn around and create a government that they themselves could not overthrow should they deem it necessary. They just know that if they admit the 2A is what it actual is then they can never achieve their actual intent. The bar to change the 2A is too high of one for them to achieve. It's easier to lie, be disingenuous, and attempt to actually subvert our founders intent.
 
Last edited:
When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace. They swore, if we gave Them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease. But when we disarmed They sold us, and delivered us, bound, to our foe, And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: "Stick to the Devil you know."
 
  • Like
Reactions: marcusluvsvols
Which seems perfectly reasonable.
No, it isn't. At least not as he's laid it out. How could one possibly come to the conclusion the government should have the power to deny it's citizenry the means to take up arms against it if the intent was to grant citizens the means to fight against a tyrannical government in the first place.
 
When you say 'gun grabbing', it sounds like grabbin all guns which is not the intent.
That is one of their fundamental defenses.

It's the whole "slippery slope" fear mongering. "You can't regulate any, because if you regulate one, you will not stop until you regulate all."

It's about as stupid as saying .........................
"you cannot assign a legal speed limit, because if you set a limit, you will not stop until the limit is zero."
 
  • Like
Reactions: screenthis
If you aren't a little bit paranoid about our Fed Govm't right now, you are on drugs.

No conspiracies here. Don't have time.
There are things far more worthy of your paranoia than the Fed Gov, if you are not at least equally paranoid of those things, you are on drugs.
 
My belief is that they are intentionally being disingenuous. They don't actually believe what they claim. If they did then they don't know how commas work, what our founders said regarding citizens freedoms, and foolishly think a group of men, who felt the need to over throw an oppressive government, would turn around and create a government that they themselves could not overthrow should they deem it necessary. They just know that if they admit the 2A is what it actual is then they can never achieve their actual intent. The bar to change the 2A is too high of one for them to achieve. It's easier to lie, be disingenuous, and attempt to actually subvert our founders intent.
That's such an absurdly stupid take. There was no unanimous decision. There was a dissent. There was plenty of disagreement about the significance of that comma. That comma was actually missing in at least 3 of the state's ratification.
 
That is one of their fundamental defenses.

It's the whole "slippery slope" fear mongering. "You can't regulate any, because if you regulate one, you will not stop until you regulate all."

It's about as stupid as saying .........................
"you cannot assign a legal speed limit, because if you set a limit, you will not stop until the limit is zero."
Well in defense of those that want to give no ground they've restricted ownership before, and they pushed for more almost immediately after. They have good reason to believe government would take them all if they could. There's plenty of sound bytes from politicians calling for exactly that.
 
Well in defense of those that want to give no ground they've restricted ownership before, and they pushed for more almost immediately after. They have good reason to believe government would take them all if they could. There's plenty of sound bytes from politicians calling for exactly that.
It's really just delusional paranoia, but it seems to work for (on) some of you.
 

VN Store



Back
Top