Right to Bear Arms

[Greta]

I don't know how anyone could 'grab a vagina' since it's internal, like grabbing a man by the anus.

Ok pussy then, if you prefer. I was trying not to be too rude but that was futile here

After some of your filthy diatribes, you just have to be joking.

Nope. Not joking.

I don't tend to engage in "filthy diatribes" - certainly not even nearly as often as you engage in trolling from your house of glass.

[Walker]

Ok pussy then, if you prefer. I was trying not to be too rude but that was futile here

After some of your filthy diatribes, you just have to be joking.

Nope. Not joking.

I don't tend to engage in "filthy diatribes" - certainly not even nearly as often as you engage in trolling from your house of glass.

don't tend?

not even nearly?

ok.

[Greta]

After some of your filthy diatribes, you just have to be joking.

Nope. Not joking.

I don't tend to engage in "filthy diatribes" - certainly not even nearly as often as you engage in trolling from your house of glass.

don't tend?

not even nearly?

ok.

It seems that you consider a few swear words on a couple of posts under duress is more obscene than Trump's unrepentant molestations?

Sooo ... if Trump had grabbed your daughter by the crotch uninvited, I take you'd be fine with that because he's an important man? Or might you figure that is an uncouth and oafish imposition on another human being?

[Walker]

Nope. Not joking.

I don't tend to engage in "filthy diatribes" - certainly not even nearly as often as you engage in trolling from your house of glass.

don't tend?

not even nearly?

ok.

It seems that you consider a few swear words on a couple of posts under duress is more obscene than Trump's unrepentant molestations?

Sooo ... if Trump had grabbed your daughter by the crotch uninvited, I take you'd be fine with that because he's an important man? Or might you figure that is an uncouth and oafish imposition on another human being?

Saying it the second time doesn't make you less of a snot, Greta.

You were given a thoughtful answer already, to the very same question.

Now, you're just a thug, and will receive due consideration.

[Dalek Prime]

I'd rather be shot, unarmed, than become a paranoid or homicidal loon who feels better with a gun. And I'm a marksman. Or rather was, until my eyes got older.

If it's only all about you, such a fate doesn't have to be forced onto another in your care.

Only parents force fate on others. Antinatalists do not. What an absolutely ridiculous statement you made.

[Walker]

I'd rather be shot, unarmed, than become a paranoid or homicidal loon who feels better with a gun. And I'm a marksman. Or rather was, until my eyes got older.

If it's only all about you, such a fate doesn't have to be forced onto another in your care.

Only parents force fate on others. Antinatalists do not. What an absolutely ridiculous statement you made.

Why is that? You don't care to defend your own life. That's your right.

What gives you the right to not defend those in your care, who would otherwise be defenseless?

You could not defend them if you're a dead dummy because you wouldn't defend yourself.

[Greta]

don't tend?

not even nearly?

ok.

It seems that you consider a few swear words on a couple of posts under duress is more obscene than Trump's unrepentant molestations?

Sooo ... if Trump had grabbed your daughter by the crotch uninvited, I take you'd be fine with that because he's an important man? Or might you figure that is an uncouth and oafish imposition on another human being?

Saying it the second time doesn't make you less of a snot, Greta.

You were given a thoughtful answer already, to the very same question.

Now, you're just a thug, and will receive due consideration.

You endorsed a candidate who openly molested women in a thuggish way. He did this to other people's daughters. No problem for you.

But when it's your own daughter - out comes the usual right wing political correctness and feigned harm.

Just asking you to empathise with others is deemed thuggery. You are getting very weird. Take a break.

[Walker]

Greta, please. You're devolving.

I addressed the topic, answered your concerns.

[Dalek Prime]

If it's only all about you, such a fate doesn't have to be forced onto another in your care.

Only parents force fate on others. Antinatalists do not. What an absolutely ridiculous statement you made.

Why is that? You don't care to defend your own life. That's your right.

What gives you the right to not defend those in your care, who would otherwise be defenseless?

You could not defend them if you're a dead dummy because you wouldn't defend yourself.

There's no one in an antinatalist's care, genius. And what gives anyone the 'right' to create anything that can be shot, does the shooting, or has to witness the event? By doing so, you've already set the possibility of harm in motion.

Birth; the sine qua non of all harm, whether you cause it or receive it.

[vegetariantaxidermy]

Right to Bear Arms
The 2nd Amendment to the USA Constitution does not say:
'The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.'
It is quite plainly qualified:
"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State."
A rational person might assume this means the arms being for Militia use and regulated by them.

"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".

Nice extra and strategically placed commas. And who said correct punctuation doesn't matter?

''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.''

For idiots: 'Because a properly-organised militia is essential for the safety of a free country it is therefore important that the people of each state have an inalienable right to an armed militia, regulated by the people of each state, to protect them and thus our great, good and free country (apart from the slaves)'.

Bah! The stupid thing doesn't mean anything.

Why didn't they just say, 'It is the inalienable right of every citizen to have as many guns and other weapons as they desire' ? It would have saved a lot of bother.

http://www.politico.com/magazine/story/ ... ent-106856


''How the NRA Rewrote the Second Amendment
A fraud on the American public.” That’s how former Chief Justice Warren Burger described the idea that the Second Amendment gives an unfettered individual right to a gun. When he spoke these words to PBS in 1990, the rock-ribbed conservative appointed by Richard Nixon was expressing the longtime consensus of historians and judges across the political spectrum.

Twenty-five years later, Burger’s view seems as quaint as a powdered wig. Not only is an individual right to a firearm widely accepted, but increasingly states are also passing laws to legalize carrying weapons on streets, in parks, in bars—even in churches.

Many are startled to learn that the U.S. Supreme Court didn’t rule that the Second Amendment guarantees an individual’s right to own a gun until 2008, when District of Columbia v. Heller struck down the capital’s law effectively banning handguns in the home. In fact, every other time the court had ruled previously, it had ruled otherwise. Why such a head-snapping turnaround? Don’t look for answers in dusty law books or the arcane reaches of theory.....''

[Walker]

There's no one in an antinatalist's care ...

Not surprising.

[Walker]

"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".

So?

The people are keeping the arms, just like it says. Their right to do that shall not be infringed.

Should it be necessary to use those arms in defense of the security of the free state, from tyranny by the government, then the arms are ready for the militia of government resistance to protect the God-given rights of mankind, from tyranny.

The language is pretty clear, despite attempts to muddle.

[Walker]

Only parents force fate on others. Antinatalists do not. What an absolutely ridiculous statement you made.

Why is that? You don't care to defend your own life. That's your right.

What gives you the right to not defend those in your care, who would otherwise be defenseless?

You could not defend them if you're a dead dummy because you wouldn't defend yourself.

There's no one in an antinatalist's care, genius. And what gives anyone the 'right' to create anything that can be shot, does the shooting, or has to witness the event? By doing so, you've already set the possibility of harm in motion.

Birth; the sine qua non of all harm, whether you cause it or receive it.

Picky picky.

I'll amend the statement.

Because it's only all about you, such a fate that results from not defending yourself will not be forced onto another in your care, because you care for no one and therefore, no one is your care.

Happy?

[vegetariantaxidermy]

"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".

So?

The people are keeping the arms, just like it says. Their right to do that shall not be infringed.

Should it be necessary to use those arms in defense of the security of the free state, from tyranny by the government, then the arms are ready for the militia of government resistance to protect the God-given rights of mankind, from tyranny.

The language is pretty clear, despite attempts to muddle.

You know what happens to people who abuse the 'quote' function. I didn't post that. And you are only seeing what you want to see. Remember it's called an AMENDMENT. Never mind about a triviality like the truth eh? Don't forget that I don't give a shit how many guns you morons have. I'm just pointing out the facts. BTW, it's even MORE confusing and ambiguous with the extra commas!

[Walker]

Sorry. That was unintentional.