Shots fired at Central Michigan University

Gotcha68 said:
What the hell is a 2nd Amendment purist?
Click to expand...

A fucking shit for brains marionette, that thinks the warped idea from the NRA, has to do with what the founding fathers wanted. These types think changing dictionary definitions is apt, to get what they want. Regulation when it turns to Wall Street, they know what the fuck it means, but are full of vicious brain farts when guns become the issue.

I don't believe the founding fathers intended to give people unfit for any duty, or even proper mental, or social capabilities, a gun equal to a small militia on it's own. Or give any civilian those things. I mean, in what deranged mind would that equate regulated? Back then the government, and the people had even grounds in weaponry, but today it's like a mouse fighting a cat. This isn't Tom, and Jerry, and the original ideas behind the amendment aren't even apt anymore. The government could launch a missile, and take out the fools only shitting themselves. Apache helicopters, battleships, tanks, jets, drones, etc. Those that can't move forward, and evolve ideas, will be left in the dust to decay. And I don't mean giving civilians all that's mentioned, and ending this country in the process either.
 
Jade Dragon said:
A fucking shit for brains marionette, that thinks the warped idea from the NRA, has to do with what the founding fathers wanted. These types think changing dictionary definitions is apt, to get what they want. Regulation when it turns to Wall Street, they know what the fuck it means, but are full of vicious brain farts when guns become the issue.
Click to expand...

here we have the diarrhea of the mouth liberal who can't handle the truth of the founders, therefore must cloud the whole issue with left and right wing talking points.........

Jade Dragon said:
I don't believe the founding fathers intended to give people unfit for any duty, or even proper mental, or social capabilities, a gun equal to a small militia on it's own. Or give any civilian those things. I mean, in what deranged mind would that equate regulated? Back then the government, and the people had even grounds in weaponry, but today it's like a mouse fighting a cat. This isn't Tom, and Jerry, and the original ideas behind the amendment aren't even apt anymore. The government could launch a missile, and take out the fools only shitting themselves. Apache helicopters, battleships, tanks, jets, drones, etc. Those that can't move forward, and evolve ideas, will be left in the dust to decay. And I don't mean giving civilians all that's mentioned, and ending this country in the process either.
Click to expand...

the founders intended for the citizenry to be EQUAL or GREATER than any standing army, as evidenced by ANY of the commentaries of that era. In other words, it is the absolute height of STUPIDITY to believe that the founders would allow their new central government ANY regulatory powers over their firearms after having just fought their old central government trying to regulate their arms.
 
PraiseKek said:
We are a democratic republic under which the will of the majority is followed so long as it does not conflict with the Constitutionally protected inalienable rights of the minority, Floridafan is arguing for a tyranny of the majority with his claim that the 2/3s of people who are non-gun owners are going to violate the 2nd amendment rights of the 1/3 that are.

If you have a problem with the 2nd amendment there is one legal option and one only, and you'll find it in Article 5 of the Constitution, good luck.
Click to expand...

Are you part of a well regulated militia? Democracy also protects the majority from a minority.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
are you under the shit for brains opinion that the framers defined 'well regulated' as under government authority?????


I believe that's the dumbest post i've seen from someone other than desh or domer.
Click to expand...

Democracy has always protected the majority from the minority... THINK.
 
SmarterthanYou said:
blows the mind, the stupidity of your thinking
Click to expand...

Here's a hint.

ol·i·gar·chy
ˈäləˌɡärkē/Submit
noun
a small group of people having control of a country, organization, or institution.
"the ruling oligarchy of military men around the president"
a country governed by an oligarchy.
"the English aristocratic oligarchy of the 19th century"
government by oligarchy.
 
Jade Dragon said:
A fucking shit for brains marionette, that thinks the warped idea from the NRA, has to do with what the founding fathers wanted. These types think changing dictionary definitions is apt, to get what they want. Regulation when it turns to Wall Street, they know what the fuck it means, but are full of vicious brain farts when guns become the issue.

I don't believe the founding fathers intended to give people unfit for any duty, or even proper mental, or social capabilities, a gun equal to a small militia on it's own. Or give any civilian those things. I mean, in what deranged mind would that equate regulated? Back then the government, and the people had even grounds in weaponry, but today it's like a mouse fighting a cat. This isn't Tom, and Jerry, and the original ideas behind the amendment aren't even apt anymore. The government could launch a missile, and take out the fools only shitting themselves. Apache helicopters, battleships, tanks, jets, drones, etc. Those that can't move forward, and evolve ideas, will be left in the dust to decay. And I don't mean giving civilians all that's mentioned, and ending this country in the process either.
Click to expand...

Your ignorance is beyond words...
 
PraiseKek said:
You literally advocated for the curtailing of many freedoms for the good of society and called the Constitution a suicide pact you fascist little piggy.
Click to expand...

I still advocate for the curtailing of many freedoms for the good of society...as anyone with a brain would do. That is NOT an anti-Constitutional agenda...as anyone with a brain would know.

And I did not call the Constitution a suicide pact...I stated that THE CONSTITUTION IS NOT A SUICIDE PACT.

Learn to read if you want to interact with people who can.





No this is a direct quote from your post you laughable fuck:


"It (sic) my personal opinion that the maximum sentence for ANY crime…should be ten year or less."
Click to expand...

Actually it is not, because you removed the sentence that followed immediately. You are trying to say that I am being soft on crime. Here is what I actually wrote:

It my personal opinion that the maximum sentence for ANY crime…should be ten year or less. Anything that requires imprisonment for more than ten years…should be a capital offense.
Click to expand...

So...I am saying that if a person is convicted of crimes that are so heinous as to require imprisonment for longer than ten years...the punishment should be DEATH.

Learn to read if you want to interact with people who can.



Lol you made a typo, using "it" instead of "in" you dumb fuck:
Click to expand...

Really?

I did make a mistake in that sentence...but your (sic) was every bit as incorrect.

Here is the sentence: "It my personal opinion that the maximum sentence for ANY crime…"

If I were to take your genius advice I would change it to "In my personal opinion that the maximum sentence for ANY crime..."

Does that sound correct to you, Mr. Genius?

I left a word out...the word "is." IT IS my personal opinion that the max... Your change would have left the sentence still wrong..

God you're fucking dumb.
Click to expand...

That is exactly what I am thinking of you.

If you are going to make a correction...do it properly...rather than changing an error into another error.
 
kudzu said:
Is this a deflection because you don't know the meaning of Oligarchy?
Click to expand...

no....it was intended to highlight how meaningless your comment was......apparently it went over your head......

the debate is about the protections provided by the constitution, not the difference between democracy and oligarchy (neither of which is the political structure of the US)......
 
PostmodernProphet said:
no....it was intended to highlight how meaningless your comment was......apparently it went over your head......

the debate is about the protections provided by the constitution, not the difference between democracy and oligarchy (neither of which is the political structure of the US)......
Click to expand...


The US has both direct and representative democracy.
 
kudzu said:
Are you part of a well regulated militia?
Click to expand...

I am a part of the people whose militia can be formed due to our inalienable right to keep and bear arms.

Democracy also protects the majority from a minority.
Click to expand...

The Constitution applies to every individual citizen of the republic, the Constitution is indifferent to who is in the majority and the minority.
 
PraiseKek said:
Oh I know you do which is why we have nothing left to discuss, may your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.
Click to expand...

The thing this country has to fear most...is someone like you...a person unwilling to be governed.

Civilized people (you can look that up)...who want a functioning society...give up freedoms for the good of society. We cannot drive the speed we want...just because we want; we cannot zip through intersections...just because we want.

But...my guess is we will survive people like you.
 
The 19 year old shot his parents. Not a terrorism event. of course you can define any shooting of innocent people as terrorism. You cannnot do a much more brutal act.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top