Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466

Christ, we are so stupid. We can't get out of our way because a poorly-worded amendment written over 200 years ago, for reasons that no longer even exist, is somehow more important than human lives.

Trying to use modern usage to support unabridged right to gun ownership, does make it read like bad grammar. But it wasn't considered poorly written 200 years ago, and it doesn't mean what people are trying to make it mean today with modern usage. In the 18th Century usage, it didn't mean everyone gets a gun no matter what and for any reason at any time. The clauses must be read together in 18th century usage, which makes it a very limited right. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/

Especially that "well regulated" part. The government is well within its rights to regulate bump stocks and glock switches and all of those other things.

Pro Tip: look up what “well regulated” meant in the context of 18th century prose.

Hint: “regulated” doesn’t mean the same thing today as it did then.

It still meant accountable and responsible in the 18th century. But today we are anything but accountable and responsible.

It did not, actually.

It’s use then was synonymous with what would be best described today as “satisfied” or “equipped “…as in a”well regulated appetite” meaning a person had sufficient food and regular meals. “Well regulated craftsmen” -having ample tools and raw materials with which to work.

Of course you are correct but our friends on the other side are certain they are correct so will discount your response.

They fail to realize that if the good people of Palestine, and yes there are good people there, had a second amendment, then Hamas rule would have ended long ago, there would have been no October 7th and we would not be where we are today.

But no, a population of 2.5 million has lived in terror for years because a ragtag group of radicals ruled because they had guns and everyday good people did not.

Hamas not only terrorizes Israel but the people of Palestine as well, using them as human shields and they have gotten away with it because they have guns and good people didn’t. Let that sink in.

How so? “Good guys with guns” do nothing with respect to crime here. The AR-15’s are just used to shoot deer, groundhogs, and school children. No way any of you’d be brave enough to lift a finger against Hamas.

Not here, Palestinians would have to free themselves of Hamas or face the consequences, as they are now. With access to weapons they would have had the choice to fight. As it is they had no choice.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

This was so disturbing. Should be required review for those who refuse to support any sensible gun legislation. Absolutely horrific.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466

Christ, we are so stupid. We can't get out of our way because a poorly-worded amendment written over 200 years ago, for reasons that no longer even exist, is somehow more important than human lives.

Trying to use modern usage to support unabridged right to gun ownership, does make it read like bad grammar. But it wasn't considered poorly written 200 years ago, and it doesn't mean what people are trying to make it mean today with modern usage. In the 18th Century usage, it didn't mean everyone gets a gun no matter what and for any reason at any time. The clauses must be read together in 18th century usage, which makes it a very limited right. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/

Especially that "well regulated" part. The government is well within its rights to regulate bump stocks and glock switches and all of those other things.

Pro Tip: look up what “well regulated” meant in the context of 18th century prose.

Hint: “regulated” doesn’t mean the same thing today as it did then.

It still meant accountable and responsible in the 18th century. But today we are anything but accountable and responsible.

It did not, actually.

It’s use then was synonymous with what would be best described today as “satisfied” or “equipped “…as in a”well regulated appetite” meaning a person had sufficient food and regular meals. “Well regulated craftsmen” -having ample tools and raw materials with which to work.

Of course you are correct but our friends on the other side are certain they are correct so will discount your response.

They fail to realize that if the good people of Palestine, and yes there are good people there, had a second amendment, then Hamas rule would have ended long ago, there would have been no October 7th and we would not be where we are today.

But no, a population of 2.5 million has lived in terror for years because a ragtag group of radicals ruled because they had guns and everyday good people did not.

Hamas not only terrorizes Israel but the people of Palestine as well, using them as human shields and they have gotten away with it because they have guns and good people didn’t. Let that sink in.

How so? “Good guys with guns” do nothing with respect to crime here. The AR-15’s are just used to shoot deer, groundhogs, and school children. No way any of you’d be brave enough to lift a finger against Hamas.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466

Christ, we are so stupid. We can't get out of our way because a poorly-worded amendment written over 200 years ago, for reasons that no longer even exist, is somehow more important than human lives.

Trying to use modern usage to support unabridged right to gun ownership, does make it read like bad grammar. But it wasn't considered poorly written 200 years ago, and it doesn't mean what people are trying to make it mean today with modern usage. In the 18th Century usage, it didn't mean everyone gets a gun no matter what and for any reason at any time. The clauses must be read together in 18th century usage, which makes it a very limited right. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/

Especially that "well regulated" part. The government is well within its rights to regulate bump stocks and glock switches and all of those other things.

Pro Tip: look up what “well regulated” meant in the context of 18th century prose.

Hint: “regulated” doesn’t mean the same thing today as it did then.

It still meant accountable and responsible in the 18th century. But today we are anything but accountable and responsible.

It did not, actually.

It’s use then was synonymous with what would be best described today as “satisfied” or “equipped “…as in a”well regulated appetite” meaning a person had sufficient food and regular meals. “Well regulated craftsmen” -having ample tools and raw materials with which to work.

Of course you are correct but our friends on the other side are certain they are correct so will discount your response.

They fail to realize that if the good people of Palestine, and yes there are good people there, had a second amendment, then Hamas rule would have ended long ago, there would have been no October 7th and we would not be where we are today.

But no, a population of 2.5 million has lived in terror for years because a ragtag group of radicals ruled because they had guns and everyday good people did not.

Hamas not only terrorizes Israel but the people of Palestine as well, using them as human shields and they have gotten away with it because they have guns and good people didn’t. Let that sink in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466

Christ, we are so stupid. We can't get out of our way because a poorly-worded amendment written over 200 years ago, for reasons that no longer even exist, is somehow more important than human lives.

Trying to use modern usage to support unabridged right to gun ownership, does make it read like bad grammar. But it wasn't considered poorly written 200 years ago, and it doesn't mean what people are trying to make it mean today with modern usage. In the 18th Century usage, it didn't mean everyone gets a gun no matter what and for any reason at any time. The clauses must be read together in 18th century usage, which makes it a very limited right. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/

Especially that "well regulated" part. The government is well within its rights to regulate bump stocks and glock switches and all of those other things.

Pro Tip: look up what “well regulated” meant in the context of 18th century prose.

Hint: “regulated” doesn’t mean the same thing today as it did then.

It still meant accountable and responsible in the 18th century. But today we are anything but accountable and responsible.

It did not, actually.

It’s use then was synonymous with what would be best described today as “satisfied” or “equipped “…as in a”well regulated appetite” meaning a person had sufficient food and regular meals. “Well regulated craftsmen” -having ample tools and raw materials with which to work.

Of course you are correct but our friends on the other side are certain they are correct so will discount your response.

They fail to realize that if the good people of Palestine, and yes there are good people there, had a second amendment, then Hamas rule would have ended long ago, there would have been no October 7th and we would not be where we are today.

But no, a population of 2.5 million has lived in terror for years because a ragtag group of radicals ruled because they had guns and everyday good people did not.

Hamas not only terrorizes Israel but the people of Palestine as well, using them as human shields and they have gotten away with it because they have guns and good people didn’t. Let that sink in.

What a bunch of NRA hogwash. All our sky high piles of guns are getting us are death and destruction and insecurity. We spend billions of dollars on police protection for ourselves and they won't even go up against these guns even when a lunatic is slaughtering innocents for hours.

Cops involved in Texas shooting were poorly led, never should have waited that long to enter and eliminate the gunman. NRA is the bogey man for everything wrong in America to liberals.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466

Christ, we are so stupid. We can't get out of our way because a poorly-worded amendment written over 200 years ago, for reasons that no longer even exist, is somehow more important than human lives.

Trying to use modern usage to support unabridged right to gun ownership, does make it read like bad grammar. But it wasn't considered poorly written 200 years ago, and it doesn't mean what people are trying to make it mean today with modern usage. In the 18th Century usage, it didn't mean everyone gets a gun no matter what and for any reason at any time. The clauses must be read together in 18th century usage, which makes it a very limited right. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/

Especially that "well regulated" part. The government is well within its rights to regulate bump stocks and glock switches and all of those other things.

Pro Tip: look up what “well regulated” meant in the context of 18th century prose.

Hint: “regulated” doesn’t mean the same thing today as it did then.

It still meant accountable and responsible in the 18th century. But today we are anything but accountable and responsible.

It did not, actually.

It’s use then was synonymous with what would be best described today as “satisfied” or “equipped “…as in a”well regulated appetite” meaning a person had sufficient food and regular meals. “Well regulated craftsmen” -having ample tools and raw materials with which to work.

Of course you are correct but our friends on the other side are certain they are correct so will discount your response.

They fail to realize that if the good people of Palestine, and yes there are good people there, had a second amendment, then Hamas rule would have ended long ago, there would have been no October 7th and we would not be where we are today.

But no, a population of 2.5 million has lived in terror for years because a ragtag group of radicals ruled because they had guns and everyday good people did not.

Hamas not only terrorizes Israel but the people of Palestine as well, using them as human shields and they have gotten away with it because they have guns and good people didn’t. Let that sink in.

What a bunch of NRA hogwash. All our sky high piles of guns are getting us are death and destruction and insecurity. We spend billions of dollars on police protection for ourselves and they won't even go up against these guns even when a lunatic is slaughtering innocents for hours.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466

Christ, we are so stupid. We can't get out of our way because a poorly-worded amendment written over 200 years ago, for reasons that no longer even exist, is somehow more important than human lives.

Trying to use modern usage to support unabridged right to gun ownership, does make it read like bad grammar. But it wasn't considered poorly written 200 years ago, and it doesn't mean what people are trying to make it mean today with modern usage. In the 18th Century usage, it didn't mean everyone gets a gun no matter what and for any reason at any time. The clauses must be read together in 18th century usage, which makes it a very limited right. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/

Especially that "well regulated" part. The government is well within its rights to regulate bump stocks and glock switches and all of those other things.

Pro Tip: look up what “well regulated” meant in the context of 18th century prose.

Hint: “regulated” doesn’t mean the same thing today as it did then.

It still meant accountable and responsible in the 18th century. But today we are anything but accountable and responsible.

It did not, actually.

It’s use then was synonymous with what would be best described today as “satisfied” or “equipped “…as in a”well regulated appetite” meaning a person had sufficient food and regular meals. “Well regulated craftsmen” -having ample tools and raw materials with which to work.

Of course you are correct but our friends on the other side are certain they are correct so will discount your response.

They fail to realize that if the good people of Palestine, and yes there are good people there, had a second amendment, then Hamas rule would have ended long ago, there would have been no October 7th and we would not be where we are today.

But no, a population of 2.5 million has lived in terror for years because a ragtag group of radicals ruled because they had guns and everyday good people did not.

Hamas not only terrorizes Israel but the people of Palestine as well, using them as human shields and they have gotten away with it because they have guns and good people didn’t. Let that sink in.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466

Christ, we are so stupid. We can't get out of our way because a poorly-worded amendment written over 200 years ago, for reasons that no longer even exist, is somehow more important than human lives.

Trying to use modern usage to support unabridged right to gun ownership, does make it read like bad grammar. But it wasn't considered poorly written 200 years ago, and it doesn't mean what people are trying to make it mean today with modern usage. In the 18th Century usage, it didn't mean everyone gets a gun no matter what and for any reason at any time. The clauses must be read together in 18th century usage, which makes it a very limited right. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/

Especially that "well regulated" part. The government is well within its rights to regulate bump stocks and glock switches and all of those other things.

Pro Tip: look up what “well regulated” meant in the context of 18th century prose.

Hint: “regulated” doesn’t mean the same thing today as it did then.

It still meant accountable and responsible in the 18th century. But today we are anything but accountable and responsible.

It did not, actually.

It’s use then was synonymous with what would be best described today as “satisfied” or “equipped “…as in a”well regulated appetite” meaning a person had sufficient food and regular meals. “Well regulated craftsmen” -having ample tools and raw materials with which to work.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466

Christ, we are so stupid. We can't get out of our way because a poorly-worded amendment written over 200 years ago, for reasons that no longer even exist, is somehow more important than human lives.

Trying to use modern usage to support unabridged right to gun ownership, does make it read like bad grammar. But it wasn't considered poorly written 200 years ago, and it doesn't mean what people are trying to make it mean today with modern usage. In the 18th Century usage, it didn't mean everyone gets a gun no matter what and for any reason at any time. The clauses must be read together in 18th century usage, which makes it a very limited right. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/

Especially that "well regulated" part. The government is well within its rights to regulate bump stocks and glock switches and all of those other things.

Pro Tip: look up what “well regulated” meant in the context of 18th century prose.

Hint: “regulated” doesn’t mean the same thing today as it did then.

It still meant accountable and responsible in the 18th century. But today we are anything but accountable and responsible.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466

Christ, we are so stupid. We can't get out of our way because a poorly-worded amendment written over 200 years ago, for reasons that no longer even exist, is somehow more important than human lives.

Trying to use modern usage to support unabridged right to gun ownership, does make it read like bad grammar. But it wasn't considered poorly written 200 years ago, and it doesn't mean what people are trying to make it mean today with modern usage. In the 18th Century usage, it didn't mean everyone gets a gun no matter what and for any reason at any time. The clauses must be read together in 18th century usage, which makes it a very limited right. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/

Especially that "well regulated" part. The government is well within its rights to regulate bump stocks and glock switches and all of those other things.

Pro Tip: look up what “well regulated” meant in the context of 18th century prose.

Hint: “regulated” doesn’t mean the same thing today as it did then.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Supreme Court to review Trump-era ban on gun ‘bump stocks’
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/supreme-court/supreme-court-review-trump-era-ban-gun-bump-stocks-rcna121466

Christ, we are so stupid. We can't get out of our way because a poorly-worded amendment written over 200 years ago, for reasons that no longer even exist, is somehow more important than human lives.

Trying to use modern usage to support unabridged right to gun ownership, does make it read like bad grammar. But it wasn't considered poorly written 200 years ago, and it doesn't mean what people are trying to make it mean today with modern usage. In the 18th Century usage, it didn't mean everyone gets a gun no matter what and for any reason at any time. The clauses must be read together in 18th century usage, which makes it a very limited right. https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2021/07/the-strange-syntax-of-the-second-amendment/

Especially that "well regulated" part. The government is well within its rights to regulate bump stocks and glock switches and all of those other things.

Pro Tip: look up what “well regulated” meant in the context of 18th century prose.

Hint: “regulated” doesn’t mean the same thing today as it did then.