Shared publicly  - 
 
States across the country are trying to protect gun ownership by proposing bills declaring that firearms made and kept within their borders are not subject to federal restrictions.
69
7
Katie Lewis's profile photoBrian Eckert's profile photoHeather Daniel's profile photoSylvester Miniea's profile photo
140 comments
 
So they want the Feds to grant and protect gun rights in citing the Second Amendment, but refuse to regulate what some might call a militia... which is also granted under the Second Amendment. To argue against the Constitution seems successionist.
 
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.

That is the text of the 2nd Amendment.  Note that the commas can denote different topics.  Therefore, the right to bear arms and a well regulated militia (which regulated could refer to the ability to shoot accurately) are two distinct concepts in the 2nd Amendment. 

The 2nd Amendment was also devised for the people to protect themselves against a tyrannical and power grabbing centralized government.
 
Bills regarding state regulations on gun ownership is not a state's right.  It's Constitutionally guaranteed.
 
Therefore if the federal government wants to limit our constitutionally granted rights, it must go to another constitutional amendment.  Until it gets to that point, the federal government legally must uphold the constitution including the 2nd amendment.

Similarly, the executive branch does not have the power to determine which laws it wants to uphold or disregard.  All laws on the books are to be upheld until changed legally and constitutionally.
 
Rights are not something given or taken by the federal government. They are rights of the people. We are not slaves of the government, we are the commander of it. We have lost our rights, and they are interpreted by the government only when our command of it fails. Our rights are not negotiable. Need no discussion. Period. Anyone who would argue that is really arguing that they are not responsible enough to have freedom.
 
The term "regulate" mean to "make regular" or uniform in standards, not control. A regulated militia is one with standards similar to a "regular" military unit.

The early American Civil War included many privately-raised, "regular" militia units that supplied their own firearms, uniforms, artillery, horses, etc., and many fought better than the "regulars" of the US Army.
 
...and here I am, in NY, just the opposite: being piled upon by even MORE (silly) restrictions than the feds.  (gotta love that the 3D printer plans for a magazine model is called "the Cuomo")
 
Paris, how would you like to limit my right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness? Kill me? Imprison me? Enslave me? Or were you thinking of limiting other rights first before you move on to those? Slippery slope.
 
Erik, well if history is our guide rights of certain have been limited. Secondly, I just stated with the Supreme Court said no rights is limited
 
I love how citing the text of the Second Amendment brings out all the English majors. If the "well regulated" portion of the text was not important, then why did the Framers include it? Nothing is in the Constitution by mistake. The way some folks would have it, "militia" refers to anyone, and "regulated" means anything goes. Sorry to burst your bubbles, but that's simply not what those words mean. It's English. Learn the language, or get out, am I right? 
 
Paris, and I am simply asking you which rights do you plan to limit of mine. Do you believe the federal government gets to choose to end my life or my freedom or my pursuit of happiness when it chooses? Or is that something that the citizens get to dictate based on the rights we have by our creator? The moment someone decides to give the choice to the government is the moment I have to question their motives. And if you believe our federal government deserves to make that decision then you need to look at its history of corruption and crime.
 
The rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit, happiness are not in the Constitution, nor are they enumerated rights. You're thinking of the Declaration of Independence. The government has the right to take your life, for example, as punishment for treason. 
 
Erik, you is talking in zero sum game. You have the right to bear arms, but you don't have the right too have a tank. Also you have the right to free speech,but you don't have the right to yell "fire" in a theater. We fought a war over how federal law relates to the states. 
 
I understand who and where those words were written. They are what founded this country. The government has no rights not given to it by the people.
 
Paris, I am asking you where do you draw the line on my freedoms? Do you leave it up to the federal government to dictate rights? 
 
Well if you is asking me personally as an African American I trust the Federal more than a trust the states. If left up to some of the states we would still have Jim Crow going on in the south.
 
As an American (no prefix necessary as we are almost all from somewhere else) I am thankful that citizens (volunteers in the Union called by Pres. Lincoln) of states secured my rights as I know them.
 
And thankfully, simply having come from "somewhere else" makes our collective experiences exactly the same. Nobody looks at anyone or treats anyone differently here, because we're all from "somewhere else." 
 
Absolutely agree, Jeremy. And thankfully we have the rights to protect that.
 
Sure, we have rights to protect that. In other news, Mississippi just this year decided it was time to ban slavery. Tell me again how everyone's experience in this country is exactly the same.
 
Ironic that the fed gov should be enforcing the Second Amendment in restrictive states but the states are now in the position of protecting their citizens from the overreach of the fed gov.
 
I'd say "shall not be infringed" pretty much makes  the right of the people to keep and bear Arms unlimited.
 
+Paris Mosley You really trust the fed gov more than the states? A lot of state were abolitionist long before the fed gov finally decided to enforce the Constitution.
 
+Jay Carlson I would say I trust myself more than I trust the feds or the states.  Hmm, i wonder if millions of Jews would have been killed in WW II if they had guns to defend themselves, which they didn't   Whether or not you think the current president is capable of such acts doesn't matter.  History repeats itself.  Someone will come along who will be a murderous tyrant. It happens everywhere in the world even today.  America is not immune.
 
+Francis Moran: "But all limits on rights must be rational and for important public purposes"

All right. Then what limits on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms would you agree are "rational and for important public purposes", Mr. Moran?
 
+Jeff Brown I'm not sure I want my next door neighbor to maintain a nuclear warhead in his garage. I'm not sure I want him to own and operate an M1 Abrams Tank, or a Rocket Propelled Grenade Launcher, either.
 
I love that when Republicans talk about things following down the "slippery slope", we are branded overreacting. But when Liberals/Democrats talk about gun owners wanting tanks and nuclear bombs - it's totally rational. Always the double standard with you people.
 
Guns don't kill people. Slippery slopes kill people.

Seriously, you hit a slick spot while walking with a loaded gun...everyone's in danger.
 
+Sylvester Miniea Translation: It's okay for me to talk in hyperbole, but not you. A rocket propelled grenade launcher is a weapon of war. So is an AR-15. Should either be permissible for civilian "use," whatever that may mean?
 
So what US v Miller says is that all male citizens (militia) are expected to be able to go to war with whatever weapons are fashionable (regulated) at the time? Sweet! I'm off to build me a nuke!
 
Handguns are the most used weapon in mass shootings. When are they going to be taken away? Right after the banning of "assault" rifles? You can essentially "snipe" a wild animal with rifles -> seems too much like a "military sniper" and therefore illegal as well.
 
+Sylvester Miniea

"Handguns are the most used weapon in mass shootings."

Cite the independently verifiable documentary evidence for this claim, please.
 
While we're looking up statistics, I'd be curious to see which is the more statistically likely scenario: a gun owner using their weapon to shoot a home intruder, or a gun owner's weapon being used to shoot a family member, or member of one's community, either accidentally or intentionally.
 
The fact that they are there to protect the family prevents the shooting of a criminal. Thus, the fact that there are higher statistics (probably) of family members being shot is a result of this - in my opinion. I can only assume because NONE of us can ever really know. 
 
+Sylvester Miniea : "The fact that they are there to protect the family prevents the shooting of a criminal."

What? This makes no sense as stated.
 
Sorry. I realized that after I re-read it. What I mean to say is that people don't want to just shoot and kill people. If someone were to break in, you show your weapon, tell them to get out, and they do. Not every time, I'm sure. But because there was no shooting, injury, or fatality, there is no statistic for it.
 
Haven't been able to review them yet. Mother Jones put them on Google Drive, and that's blocked by the firewall I am sitting behind at the moment.
 
Yeah. They had downloadable copies as well. That's what I used. The tab on the page shows the number of specific weapons, however.
 
+Sylvester Miniea Thank you for linking to that report. It's interesting. It is up to the individual to decide what they wish to have in their home for their own protection. As for my situation, break ins are not that common, and the statistics involving accidents are such that it would be more dangerous to have a gun in my home than not, so I've decided against. I do have a problem with conceal/carry laws, because unlike police, conceal/carry permit holders are not required to maintain a verified training schedule (well regulated). A stray bullet from a conceal/carry "good guy" is just as lethal as a stray bullet from a trained police officer, and frankly, I'd prefer to not be around that many stray bullets to begin with.
 
I respect your point of view. Just remember that just because someone is required to train and hold a marksman level (police officers, military, etc...) does not mean they are a better shot than someone not required to train. Many hunters are far better shots than those who are not. The nice thing about carry/conceal licenses (at least here in SC) is that you have to attend an 8 hour class of which you have to fire the weapon. You can't just buy a gun and never shoot it, then walk around with it on your hip like you're John Wayne. ;-)
 
The Mother Jones statistic do indicate that semiautomatic handguns are used in a majority of the mass killings that the magazine examined -- quite frequently in combination with other weapons.

So what?
 
I said: "Handguns are the most used weapon in mass shootings."

You said: "Cite the independently verifiable documentary evidence for this claim, please."

I was citing.
 
+Sylvester Miniea : "I was citing."

Yes, I know. Thank you, Captain Obvious.

So what if "Handguns are the most used weapon in mass shootings"?
 
Repeating the question to +Francis Moran: What limits on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms would you agree are "rational and for important public purposes"?
 
Also... +Francis Moran is incorrect when he claims that what I am best at is insults. What I excel at is challenging Moran and his ilk to discuss facts.

It may be educational (and will certainly be entertaining) to ask Moran how he fares when he is presented with such a challenge.
 
I stated that handguns were used more often in mass shootings than the so-called "assault" rifles and was wondering when they would be banned as well. Do you really think it will stop at just the military style weapons?
 
+Sylvester Miniea: "Do you really think it will stop at just the military style weapons?"

I have no idea. My crystal ball is in the shop for repairs.

Are you trying to make an argument here? If so, please make it.
 
No. Wringing hands isn't an argument. If +Sylvester Miniea has an actual argument to make, he should make it... not just whine and moan and pretend that that is his argument.
 
What are you talking about? I repeated it multiple times. The government wants to keep people from owning "assault" rifles because they are increase the devastation during mass shootings. I stated that handguns were used more often in mass shootings than any other weapon and would the next step be to prevent people from owning handguns? YOU never answered MY question. My argument is that to prevent the vast majority of people who do the right thing all the time because some moron who did the wrong thing once is asinine. We don't keep people from owning cars because people get drunk and kill people with cars. As a matter of fact, we don't even prevent people from getting drunk because they get in cars and kill people. 
 
+Sylvester Miniea

"My argument is that to prevent the vast majority of people who do the right thing all the time because some moron who did the wrong thing once is asinine."

So let's be clear: You are advocating that we do nothing at all to prevent guns from falling into the hands of unstable personalities who may use them to commit mass murder. Do I understand you correctly?
 
So you would take them away from law abiding citizens to prevent it? Why not take away opiate medications from people who need them to prevent their children from stealing them. Education is the key to preventing things - safes, for instance. Taking peoples property and subverting the constitution is not the answer.
 
+Sylvester Miniea : "So you would take them away from law abiding citizens to prevent it?"

Did I say that?

Nope. Nice straw man you got there.

Now, again, let me be certain that I understand your argument: Are you, in fact, advocating that we do nothing at all to prevent guns from falling into the hands of unstable personalities who may use them to commit mass murder. Do I understand you correctly?
 
He's over on The Daily Caller page trolling +Ken Carlos shitting up a thread over their with his dumb ranting bullshit.  What a pathetic loser life ole Jeffy boy must have. Sad..sad..sad.
 
+Francis Moran :  

"But all limits on rights must be rational and for important public purposes"

What limits on the Second Amendment right to keep and bear arms would you agree are "rational and for important public purposes", Mr. Moran?
 
Here we go again.  Like a broken record.
 
+Francis Moran :

"Registration, adequate training, background check."

Let's focus on background checks for the moment. Are you advocating universal background checks for all gun sales, including those made by private sellers who are currently exempt from this requirement?
 
Other than not allowing citizens free access to true military, fully automatic weapons, I will accept no limitations on my rights.  I do not need the government to know I have firearms or train me in how to use them.   Background checks are already in place.   Hey Jeffy, how about letting a conservative president place limitaions on your right to free speech?   I mean, no one "needs" to yell "hey mffkr" in public.  No one "needs" to protest the government about a war that was approved by Congress, right?  And peopel like you shouldn't be allowed to butcher show tunes in public.   Lets place limits on all of that. 
 
I do think that pansy synchophants like Jeff Brown shouldn't own firearms.   They've entrusted their lives to an unqualified community organizer who is creating a mob of dependents for whom we cannot provide.  When Bammy runs out of other peoples' money and the deadbeat horde descends on Jeffy's efficiency apartment to loot his belongings, I don't think he should be allowed to shoot them as they are his "people."
 
I find it amazing that any American would allow a elitist snob tell them how they will live their lives or defend themselves.  My former Marine Dad taught me to shoot when I was 6 years old.  I've been a gun owner since age 9.  I own multiple firearms.  I've never shot anyone.  The only person I can imagine shooting is an Obama voter breaking into my home.  I don't need some Chicago political thug who shot a pop gun one time for a photo op to tell me what kind of training I "need."  I think my years of lectures and hands on instruction by a U.S. Marine marksman are superior to what a part time Harvard professor can provide. 
 
+Ken Carlos

"I don't need some Chicago political thug who shot a pop gun one time for a photo op to tell me what kind of training I "need.""

Who is telling you what kind of training you need, Kenny?
 
Hey, hammerhead.   You just said background checks, training, and registration should be required.  Are you now going to deny crap that came out of your little bon bon hole?  By they way, I've decided that you don't "need" any violent video games so they should be banned.   Also, I think those spicy Doritos you eat while you game with the other woman-less wonders are just too unhealthy and you don't "need" them so I want them taken off the store shelves so you can't buy them.
 
All Jeffy has is a condescending tone.   Oh, and ovaries.
 
I think his Mommy cut off his internet privileges until he finishes washing out the Prius.   Apparently, he spilled a quart of fairy dust in the back seat on the way back from the Mall of Dreams. 
 
+Ken Carlos

"Hey, hammerhead.   You just said background checks, training, and registration should be required."

Hey, dipshit assclown: +Francis Moran proposed that background checks, training, and registration should be required.
 
+Francis Moran:
 
"I will not answer a condescending tone after a civil attempt"

Evasion noted.

Let's focus on background checks for the moment. Are you advocating universal background checks for all gun sales, including those made by private sellers who are currently exempt from this requirement?
 
What do you propose?  Gulags for non-wussified free thinkers who refuse to be Obammy's serf?
 
I agree that +Jeff Brown is not qualified by intelligence or testosterone to purchase, own or touch a gun.   Since he soils himself when he sees Spock pull his phaser on a Klingon, I'm pretty sure this is a wise decision. 
 
"What do you propose?"

I propose to continue to point out that +Ken Carlos lied about what I said. I propose to keep shoving that fact into Kenny's lying face, and to keep reminding him that he lacks the strength of character to take responsibility for his lies and to apologize for lying.

"Gulags for non-wussified free thinkers who refuse to be Obammy's serf?"

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

"I agree that +Jeff Brown is not qualified by intelligence or testosterone to purchase, own or touch a gun."

http://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/strawman

Please continue to be a lying coward, Kenny. I could not possibly do as complete a job of discrediting you as you have done yourself.
 
+Ken Carlos wrote: 

"I don't need some Chicago political thug who shot a pop gun one time for a photo op to tell me what kind of training I "need.""

Who is telling you what kind of training you need, Kenny?

Run away from that simple question again, Kenny. Remind us how deep your cowardice runs, Kenny.
 
Looks like Jeff is on his period this morning.
 
How about this, +Jeff Brown . We, as conservatives, pretty much all feel like we have enough restrictions on owning firearms as it stands now. Cost makes it prohibitive for many people to just run out and buy one. You have to register for a firearm in nearly every area. To receive a Conceal Carry License you need to be vetted by SWAT or the Sheriff of your county (for the most part). What additional restrictions do YOU feel that the actual law abiding citizens of this nation need? 
It's not our argument to add restrictions, it's yours. So why don't you go into a little detail about that instead of pointing at the whole for the deficiency of the illegal few.
 
+Sylvester Miniea You need to stop engaging Jeffy Brownie.   It's a waste of time.   In addition to being woefully uninformed he is so brainwashed and obedient to His Majesty Barry O, he cannot consider alternative views.  Plus he's willfully stupid.   If Obama came out in favor of burning every woman named "Samantha" at the stake because they are "witches," Jeffy would be first in line for a torch.   He's a synchophant and a follower.   Oh, did I also mention he's stupid? 
 
+Sylvester Miniea +Darin Walker +Francis Moran Gentlemen:  I submit that the free speech rights of blatantly uninformed morons like Jeffy Brown be strictly limited to things with which they have verifiable experience.  For instance, Jeffy won't be able to discuss politics, money, cars or women.   But he will be able to hold forth on tampon absorbancy, Doom v. Gears of War, and Justin Beiber.  He will need to register his opinions on all other issues and receive approval before he pontificates.  Do I have a second?    
 
The motion passes!   Much like Bammy and the Dems deciding what we "need" in terms of firearms and money, we have determined what Jeffy "needs" in terms of First Amendment Rights.   Don't worry Jeffy-poo, like Obama, we "believe in your Constitutional rights;"  however, we are here to determine the limitations based on our view of your "needs" and "competency."   Please free to discuss the tampons and such.  Any other topics you wish to raise must first be cleared by me, Francis, Darin and Sylvester.   Enjoy your day, you fine American!
 
+Ken Carlos, in the comments above:  

"I don't need some Chicago political thug who shot a pop gun one time for a photo op to tell me what kind of training I "need.""

Who is telling you what kind of training you need, Kenny?

Remind us again how deep your cowardice runs, Kenny.
 
+Sylvester Miniea

Are you, in fact, advocating that we do nothing at all to prevent guns from falling into the hands of unstable personalities who may use them to commit mass murder. Do I understand you correctly?
 
I think you have said that 3 times. I want to know what you think we should do. I think what we have done is more than enough. The fact that some illegal activity happens shouldn't force penalties on those of us doing the right thing.

Like I said earlier. Tell us what your proposed plans are. Thanks.
 
+Sylvester Miniea

"I think you have said that 3 times."

If so, then you have evaded that question three times. Gotta wonder why you cannot find the courage to answer it.

Are you, in fact, advocating that we do nothing at all to prevent guns from falling into the hands of unstable personalities who may use them to commit mass murder. Do I understand you correctly?
 
Sylvester - don't waste your time with Jeff he just a troll trying to get a rise out of you. All he does is repeat the same shit over and over. He is a no life loser than has nothing better to do. He is a miserable person and is just trying to spread his misery.
 
It truly appears that way. Since I did, in fact, answer his question. Yet he has not answered mine. I'm good with not talking at a brick wall for now on. Shoulda listened to the half-dozen people on here that told me that about 15 posts ago. ;-)
 
I'm sure the loser will come back again quoting the same shit asking the same dumb ass questions. 
 
+Sylvester Miniea

"Since I did, in fact, answer his question."

Cite the comment in which you provided that answer.
 
See I told you. Like a broken fucking record. What a fucking loser.
 
In other words, +Sylvester Miniea, you did not answer my question -- and then you lied about doing so.

Yup, you're a typical #wingnut . Thanks for the proof.  
 
And you're the typical fucktard liberal douche bag Jeffy boy. Thanks for the proof.
 
Against my better judgement, and the judgement of everyone else that has told me not to respond to you... here it is... one last time. What I said before:
I think what we have done is more than enough. The fact that some illegal activity happens shouldn't force penalties on those of us doing the right thing.
So yes... I advocate doing nothing MORE than what is already in place. So now, your turn to show us how intelligent you are on fixing such a broken system.
 
+Sylvester Miniea

"So yes... I advocate doing nothing MORE than what is already in place."

Ah, finally an actual answer. Took you a while to find your spine, did it?

And when you did, you admitted that you advocate allowing the slaughter to continue. No surprise there.

Now tell me why you believe that nothing at all should be done to stop unstable personalities from gaining access to firearms.
 
You still being a douche bag Jeffy boy? You can't help it can you Jeffy boy? Because you're a retard aren't you Jeffy boy.
 
I'm asking hard questions, +Darin Walker

You're attacking me because you are afraid of those hard questions. It's just that simple: you are a coward.
 
I don't need to answer your questions. You're not stimulating a discussion. You're merely pulling an answer from someone, and then continuing to follow it up with another asinine question instead of answering a question yourself. #libertards  tend to show how much they prefer conversation and yet never actually involve themselves in it. Not putting forth an idea is not being conversational.
 
Jeff - were you anally raped by your father when you were a little boy?
 
+Sylvester Miniea

"I don't need to answer your questions."

But apparently you do need to repeatedly advertise your intellectual cowardice.

"You're not stimulating a discussion."

I don't expect a discussion from your kind. I expect you to do exactly what you've done -- and you've lived down to those expectations.
 
We don't expect you to understand simple English Jeffy boy because you a fucking retard. Were you anally raped by you father when you were a little boy Jeffy?
 
 +Darin Walker and +Sylvester Miniea :  you forgot WE decided Jeffy cannot discuss these issue.  +Francis Moran just joined the motion as well.   Jeffy strayed into areas outside of feminine hygiene and gaming which he is not allowed to do because he doesn't "need" to and isn't "property trained" and "registered" as a non-moron adult, according to us.   When he tries to engage, remind him he's not licensed, hasn't had a background check and does not exhibit proper training.   It's important that we follow his role model Bammy and force others to do things that are best for them.
 
+Jeff Brown greetings, sufficiently limited rights American.  When you take a break from lighting farts, enlighten us all on the newest releases for X-Box gaming.  
 
+Ken Carlos wrote: 

"I don't need some Chicago political thug who shot a pop gun one time for a photo op to tell me what kind of training I "need.""

Who is telling you what kind of training you need, Kenny? Anyone? Or did you simply make that up out of whole cloth?
 
 You did not answer my question Jeffy.  Repeating the question to for Jeff Brown:

Were you anally raped by you father when you were a little boy Jeffy?

Apparently you do need to repeatedly advertise your intellectual ignorance.   It's just that simple: you are a faggot loser. Remind us again how deep your faggotness runs, Jeffy.
 
+Jeff Brown Sorry, you are not allowed to engage on the issue of Second Amendment rights.   You are not sufficiently trained or registered to exercise Free Speech rights on firearem ownership.   You don't need to talk about it and since you don't own a gun and you pee your panties when you see one, you are not qualified.   Much like Dear Leader, we've determined that you need to shut up. 
 
+Jeff Brown I will allow you to talk about Super Soakers if you like.   Do you think that there should be a limit to the ounces of water a Super Soaker can hold?  
 
+Ken Carlos

"Sorry, you are not allowed to engage on the issue of Second Amendment rights."

How amusing: a craven coward who refuses to discuss any facts about gun safety pretends it has the power to silence others.

Keep running away from the facts, gutless moron.
 
Read this carefully. Notice that the alleged proposal to mandate government training in the use of firearms that +Ken Carlos has been ranting about simply does not exist. Facts terrify Kenny, and he tucks his yellow tail and runs away from them -- every single time they come up in a discussion.

Obama’s gun-control proposals
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/politics/obama-gun-proposals/index.html

"President Obama proposed expansive gun-control policies aimed at curbing gun violence. The Obama administration can implement about half of the proposals, but the others — arguably some of the more critical initiatives — will require congressional approval."
 
I think it's funny when +Jeff Brown goes on and on about facts. When I post a LIBERAL site that shows my point - silence. But that's okay. It's par for the course that someone of such limited intelligence and moral fiber would be willing to accept that he was inaccurate. 
 
He's the coward. He won't answer my questions about his father anally raping him so he can confront his demons.
 
+Sylvester Miniea:

"I think it's funny when +Jeff Brown goes on and on about facts. When I post a LIBERAL site that shows my point - silence."

You're lying. I did, in fact, respond to your post regarding the data used by Mother Jones.

Are lies really the only way you can construct an argument, Sylvester?
 
+Jeff Brown Sorry, sir;  you are still not permitted to discuss gun safety.  You don't own a gun and can't be trusted with one.   I've decided to limit your free speech rights on that issue.   I support your Constitutional Rights, sir but no rights come without limitation.  Once you can demonstrate knowledgde of guns, gun safety and the Second Amendment, please submit your paperwork and pass a background check and then you will be issued a permit to discuss these issues.  As a staunch supporter of Obama, I'm sure you understand that it's for your own good.     
 
+Ken Carlos

"I've decided to limit your free speech rights on that issue."

Decide all you like, coward. You are powerless to shut me up.

The President’s 23 Executive Actions on Gun Proliferation Do Not Include Confiscations Or FEMA Camp Internments for Gun Owners
http://www.pensitoreview.com/2013/01/17/the-presidents-23-executive-actions-on-gun-proliferation-do-not-include-confiscations-or-fema-camp-internments-for-gun-owners/

Facts, Kenny. Scary scary facts. Run away, lying coward!
 
No, no.  You and your Dear Leader have set the standard.  Others will now decide whether YOUR Constitutional rights should also be limited.  You seek to limit mine to own, carry and use firearms as I have for the past 42 years because your silly young government employed ass is afraid of guns, self-sufficient Americans and probably vaginas.   As a result, I will follow your lead and limit yours.  Again, I'm waiting:  do you think Super Soaker Water Mags should be limited to a half pint?   Otherwise, shut your Dorito hole and go wipe up.
 
+Ken Carlos

"You seek to limit mine to own, carry and use firearms as I have for the past 42 years..."

I do? News to me. Show me where I have advocated for any such limitations on your rights, Kenny. That means quote my exact words.

Run away now, lying coward. I just challenged to you discuss facts, and we both know that makes you pee your panties.
 
No you are the liar Jeffy boy. You DID NOT answer the Sylvester question. So you sir are the liar. You have also not answered my question or Ken's question. Are you scared of the facts you little peter puffer? I'll ask again....were you anally raped by your father Jeffy? Answer the question fag boy.
 
+Darin Walker

"You DID NOT answer the Sylvester question."

I responded to Sylvester's posting of data from Mother Jones. He claims I did not. He's lying.
 
If you want to know the last time Jeff had intimate contact with a woman, just ask for his date of birth.  Assuming of course he's not the genetically engineered clone of cyborg moron Al Gore.
 
+Ken Carlos:
 
"You seek to limit mine to own, carry and use firearms as I have for the past 42 years..."

I do? News to me. Show me where I have advocated for any such limitations on your rights, Kenny. That means quote my exact words.

Run away again, lying coward.
 
No you did not Jeff you are a liar. And you still haven't answered the other questions. Answer the questions you little peter puffer.
 
+Darin Walker 

"No you did not Jeff you are a liar."

You're lying, Darin. See my comment above, dated Feb 19, 2013:

"The Mother Jones statistic do indicate that semiautomatic handguns are used in a majority of the mass killings that the magazine examined -- quite frequently in combination with other weapons."

Stay stupid, lying maggot.
 
Gads this little boy is boring.   I have a business to run and break time is over.   Hey Jeffy, turn off your laptop and go back to sorting mail.  Don't forget to take your meds, change your tamp, and call Mommy when you are ready for her to come give you a ride back to your 235 square foot NerdCube.  I bid you all good day.  Ken Carlos out.
 
You DID NOT answer the question Jeffy you dodged it you little peter puffing faggot. Now answer the question you cum slurper!
 
What +Sylvester Miniea claimed:

"When I post a LIBERAL site that shows my point - silence."

Sylvester lied. I responded as indicated above.
 
Answer the question peter puffer!
 
Which question, +Darin Walker? Surely if it is important to you that I answer, you can supply specifics.
 
Go back and re-read and you will find it dipshit. I'm not your fucking mommy!
 
If you knew how to read and comprehend you could find it you little peter puffer.
 
Again: +Darin Walker doesn't actually want an answer. His kind isn't interested in rational debate, merely in verbal abuse.
 
Can you read peter puffer???  Evidently not homo.  Now go back and re-read the whole post and find the question and answer it Jeffy.  I'm getting impatience fag boy.
Add a comment...