Great democratic debate clip on gun violence.

[MegaPoke]

Gotta admit, Bernie raises a good point here, @syskatine. Really makes you think.

 

[Medic007]

Gotta admit, Bernie raises a good point here, @syskatine. Really makes you think.

View embedded media

Very interesting perspective. I have not heard it phrased like that before.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

 

[Medic007]

If you're so miserable and afraid why don't you just leave?

The Second Amendment says "Hi buddy!" Noticed you dodged yet another discussion on the subject. What lame smarmy excuse are you going to use this time @syskatine?

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

If you're so miserable and afraid why don't you just leave?

The Second Amendment says "Hi buddy!" Noticed you dodged yet another discussion on the subject. What lame smarmy excuse are you going to use this time @syskatine?

Man you never get tired of the same political arguments, do you Rainman? You always post the same shit, over and over. Gun control and your racial victimization. At this point, what new point is there to make about gun control or the second amendment on these boards? What point has either side left out? You seem to really want to engage the enemy, and that's cool, but the dogma and repetition is boring.

 

[Medic007]

Man you never get tired of the same political arguments, do you Rainman? You always post the same shit, over and over. Gun control and your racial victimization. At this point, what new point is there to make about gun control or the second amendment on these boards? What point has either side left out? You seem to really want to engage the enemy, and that's cool, but the dogma and repetition is boring.

Says the guy who never wastes a chance to tell us about how the standing army replaced the need for the militia and that guns should only be owned by the government and not the people because guns kill people, then goes on to pose the same dumb ass question of who should own tanks and nukes. Yes, that's you @syskatine.

You know you've been beat and that's why you run away from Second Amendment discussions that YOU initiate when somebody actually answers your dumbass "questions." It's cool as you say. You're a chickenshit who has no knowledge outside of the liberal script thus leaving you unable to actually debate the issue. Talk about dogma and boring repetition, Mr. 30 Guns.

Engage the "enemy?" Nah, I just like rubbing your face in your own bullshit. The word you should have used is opponent. Enemy implies you're some sort of threat to something.

 

[anon_xl72qcu5isp39]

Says the guy who never wastes a chance to tell us about how the standing army replaced the need for the militia and that guns should only be owned by the government and not the people because guns kill people, then goes on to pose the same dumb ass question of who should own tanks and nukes. Yes, that's you @syskatine.

You know you've been beat and that's why you run away from Second Amendment discussions that YOU initiate when somebody actually answers your dumbass "questions." It's cool as you say. You're a chickenshit who has no knowledge outside of the liberal script thus leaving you unable to actually debate the issue. Talk about dogma and boring repetition, Mr. 30 Guns.

Engage the "enemy?" Nah, I just like rubbing your face in your own bullshit. The word you should have used is opponent. Enemy implies you're some sort of threat to something.

 

[imprimis]

Says the guy who never wastes a chance to tell us about how the standing army replaced the need for the militia and that guns should only be owned by the government and not the people because guns kill people, then goes on to pose the same dumb ass question of who should own tanks and nukes

In another thread not too long ago the subject of guns and who and what kind someone can own, I posted a synopsis of a liberal anti-gun law professor discussing the 2nd amendment. It part of his law journal article, he cited United States v Miller, a case involving possession of an "illegal" firearm--a sawed-off shotgun.

In US v Miller, among the reasons for not supporting Miller's arguments, the SCOTUS said that at the time (1939) a sawed-off shotgun was not considered as part of the normal component of a military arsenal notwithstanding Miller never argued it was. As the anti-gun law professor stated, it could be argued, based on the court's decision, that weapons which are a normal component of the military arsenal could be deemed legal to possess, including rockets, bazookas, tanks and yes, the dreaded, "assault" weapons.

 

[imprimis]

An oldie but goodie about the myths of gun control:

 

[Medic007]

Waaaaaaaaaaaaa!