Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://www.rightwingwatch.org/content/b ... ighter-jet" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

...or a fighter jet!!!!! Nukes next??



Today on "WallBuilders Live," David Barton doubled down on his assertion that there are literally no limits on the Second Amendment, declaring that individuals not only have an inalienable right to possess guns, but also tanks, rocket launchers, fighter jets, and anything else they can get their hands on; including, presumably, even nuclear bombs.

The belief of the Second Amendment was you as a citizen have a right to defend yourself whether it be against a thug, an aggressor, a crook, or against your government.

Now this is where a lot of liberals go through the roof; are you saying that you think individual citizens have a right to own a machine gun?

Yeah. And an Abrams Tank, and a bazooka, and a F-16 because you've got a right to defend yourself with the same size of weapons that might be brought against you ... You have a right to fight back with whatever you can get your hands on to defend your life, your property, your possession, your family, your whatever.





Cluck U:


"Breaker 1-9, honey. Tell John and Harriet ta cover their flowers. I'm-a gonna get them A-rabs if'n it's the last thang ah DO!"

Earth to Cap...

Citizens already own machine guns...

It's legal...not easy...but legal...

Check out the National Firearms Act...

Col Hogan wrote:Earth to Cap...

Citizens already own machine guns...

It's legal...not easy...but legal...

Check out the National Firearms Act...

You mean they're well regulated?

Actually it does. It says the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It was clearly intended to prohibit the Federal government from limiting the People from having military arms. It was not limited to guns at all. Arms.

Now, that might not be practical in today's world. Like maybe we wouldn't want just anybody to have nuclear weapons. But that's what it says. And If we don't want that we should Amend the Constitution instead of all this crap where Courts pretend the Constitution doesn't say what it says.

And, no, it does not say that a person has to be in a militia in order to have that right. It cites the need for a militia as a reason for the need for the right. It does not say that the right is conditional on being in a militia.

What it does do in referring to a militia is make it absolutely clear that it is referring to military arms of any kind.

JohnStOnge wrote:Actually it does. It says the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. It was clearly intended to prohibit the Federal government from limiting the People from having military arms. It was not limited to guns at all. Arms.

Now, that might not be practical in today's world. Like maybe we wouldn't want just anybody to have nuclear weapons. But that's what it says. And If we don't want that we should Amend the Constitution instead of all this crap where Courts pretend the Constitution doesn't say what it says.

And, no, it does not say that a person has to be in a militia in order to have that right. It cites the need for a militia as a reason for the need for the right. It does not say that the right is conditional on being in a militia.

What it does do in referring to a militia is make it absolutely clear that it is referring to military arms of any kind.

Like hd said, why do you and other conk shitheads completely gloss over the well regulated portion?

houndawg wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:Earth to Cap...

Citizens already own machine guns...

It's legal...not easy...but legal...

Check out the National Firearms Act...

You mean they're well regulated?

"Shall not be infringed"..


Occupying My House!

As Col Hogan stated, maybe actually read the existing legislation. Particularly, read the NFA and the definition of Destructive Devices, and you'll know why citizens cannot own many of the things this ass clown is suggesting.

Trust me; if I could own Claymores I would. They're only like the coolest thing. Ever.

93henfan wrote:As Col Hogan stated, maybe actually read the existing legislation. Particularly, read the NFA and the definition of Destructive Devices, and you'll know why citizens cannot own many of the things this ass clown is suggesting.

Trust me; if I could own Claymores I would. They're only like the coolest thing. Ever.

The tent at Cap n Cork has an awesome collection of fireworks available during the three weeks leading up to July 4th. You should be able to hold off the zombie apocalypse for at least 45 minutes with all that shitt going off at once.

Cluck U wrote:

93henfan wrote:As Col Hogan stated, maybe actually read the existing legislation. Particularly, read the NFA and the definition of Destructive Devices, and you'll know why citizens cannot own many of the things this ass clown is suggesting.

Trust me; if I could own Claymores I would. They're only like the coolest thing. Ever.

The tent at Cap n Cork has an awesome collection of fireworks available during the three weeks leading up to July 4th. You should be able to hold off the zombie apocalypse for at least 45 minutes with all that shitt going off at once.

Slow walking zombies, or the new fast walking zombies???

-

B Hussein Obama- NRA Fundraiser of the Year for 5 years running.

The NRA's "Friends of NRA" campaign has raised a record breaking amount of money so far this year. "Friends of NRA" is one of the group's grassroots efforts, sponsoring volunteer events and fundraising banquets around the country.

According to Richmond's WTVR.com, the program has already raised $51 million, with "more than 200 fundraising events left in 2013." The amount raised in the first eight and a half months of 2013 is already $1 million more than the entire amount raised in 2012.


http://wtvr.com/2013/09/26/nra-fundraising-record/" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

houndawg wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:Earth to Cap...

Citizens already own machine guns...

It's legal...not easy...but legal...

Check out the National Firearms Act...

You mean they're well regulated?

Yes, in 18th century terms, well-regulated means functioning as expected, calibrated properly, something in proper working order, etc.
With that said, a "well-regulated" militia means a group of citizen soldiers who are well trained, well equipped, and well armed.

Col Hogan wrote:Earth to Cap...

Citizens already own machine guns...

It's legal...not easy...but legal...

Check out the National Firearms Act...

Earth to Mr. Magoo...

Tanks and fighter jets, you dork.

Cap'n Cat wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:Earth to Cap...

Citizens already own machine guns...

It's legal...not easy...but legal...

Check out the National Firearms Act...

Earth to Mr. Magoo...

Tanks and fighter jets, you dork.

Earth to Fatso...

You said "Now this is where a lot of liberals go through the roof; are you saying that you think
citizens have a right to own a machine gun?"

And I replied.,.

Did I say anything about tanks or fighter jets???

93henfan wrote:

Col Hogan wrote:

Cap'n Cat wrote:
Earth to Mr. Magoo...

Tanks and fighter jets, you dork.

Earth to Fatso...

You said "Now this is where a lot of liberals go through the roof; are you saying that you think
citizens have a right to own a machine gun?"

And I replied.,.

Did I say anything about tanks or fighter jets???

Earth to Dumbass.

I said no such thing. It was in the article. Enroll at the local community college for some reading comprehension instruction, you fuck. Hurry, so you can get there before the local beauty school dropouts start pouring in.