Top Democrat On Gun Control: “Confiscation Could Be an Option”

PREFER ACP

Bullshit...anything and everything, even Fire.

Guns will illegally circulate... Do you have any comprehension of what a black market is? "and if they have them and decide to use them rest assured they wont have it anymore"-please elaborate on this, all you say is i they use them they will disappear essentially, why? or is that too much for you to explain yourself

Here's something that will twist this twisted moron even more.

2008

Heller vs. The District of Columbia (or Washington D.C.)

[link to en.wikipedia.org]

Regarding the right of the individual to possess arms.

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), was a landmark case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution protects an individual's right to possess a firearm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home and within federal enclaves. The decision did not address the question of whether the Second Amendment extends beyond federal enclaves to the states,[1] which was addressed later by McDonald v. Chicago (2010). It was the first Supreme Court case in United States history to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense.[2]

On June 26, 2008, the Supreme Court affirmed the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Heller v. District of Columbia.[3][4] The Court of Appeals had struck down provisions of the Firearms Control Regulations Act of 1975 as unconstitutional, determined that handguns are "arms" for the purposes of the Second Amendment, found that the District of Columbia's regulations act was an unconstitutional banning, and struck down the portion of the regulations act that requires all firearms including rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock." "Prior to this decision the Firearms Control Regulation Act of 1975 also restricted residents from owning handguns except for those registered prior to 1975."[5]

So, do I listen to you and your misinterpretation of OUR Second Amendment and it's most recent AFFIRMATION by the Supreme Court of the United States or some antique French book?

Take this to heart...

"It is better to keep one's mouth closed and be thought a fool than to open it and remove all doubt."

LOL Really!!!?

Hum, yeah let her call 911.... Hey police come quick I'm about to get raped. Police: mam we'll be there as quick as possible, can you withstand the rape for at least 5-10 mins until we get there? Once we get there we will get him off you.....

Very logic eh!?

You're full of shit, not even worth taking the time, go spread your BS somewhere else, you're wasting your time here, no one buys what you sell.

There are alternative means of defending onself how about a stun gun or mace and even pepper spray and Directed energy weapons

So, go file a criminal charge against him. Until that happens its a moot point.

Did you flunk out of law school? Can we see your records? Oh you were a constitutional lecturer is that it. Or are you just pulling our legs barry and co. Your arguments are null and void and you can stop with the jargon of making up shit as you see fit and the book you refer to is like first year political science crap in a liberals wet dream. yes they even existed back in the 1800's just that nobody listened to them retards because their analysis were completely off base and wrong.

Classic you can't deny the proof so you attack the messenger refute the claim made by the founding fathers contemporaries in that book

If there is a civil war it needs to be the 99.9% vs. .01%. It could be over really quick.

You have won nothing nor done any "duty".

You are a fucking retarded, intentionally obtuse, brainless commie halfwit.

You have gotten nowhere trying to propogate your lies.

Die in a fire you POS.

As I suspected, that poster studied at Hogwarts Academy.

as if Latin produces 'magical words' that defend him in debate.

I don't care anymore come and take them. I'm sick of it all!! We can't win this fight with out a bloodbath. You stupid fools want a hand out, here have some free lead. I'm gonna die a patriot and not a NWO slave. There is no way this bastard won this election. People were pissed, they were organized for the first time ever and Obongo had nobody even showing at his events.

TPTB are gonna take the guns at some point. this is phase one. We are the worlds largest army. Let's kick some fucking ass!!!!!!!!!!!

They are called guns you fuckwart.

Did I hit a nerve I provided proof I gave you the name of the book

"Can" means Ability. Apparently English is not your first language after all. Do yourself a favor, stick to Latin.

We have bad apples like every other profession. And eviction by court order for not paying your bills is a far cry from gun control.

that you never read just a name of a book that is on your list of talking points to try and prove something shill.
Take a hike

The second amendment was never intended for future developments. Thomas Jefferson


Holland Imperial Museusm of Historical Records

Sorry, Charlie, the Jury disagrees with you. You've lost the debate.

I read the book cover to cover and it was written by the founding fathers contemporaries

The best thing for you is to do your own research or STFU

Idiot. Governments have murdered hundreds of millions of people, and you want only them to have them?

The ignorant bastard is violating his oath of office!! Blatantly!

What about his OATH of office that included a clause to "PROTECT AND DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA"?? The president is NOT the only official that is required to take that pledge as part of their oath of office.

There are legal and lawful means for changing the US Constitution. It's been done often enough with mixed results (look at Prohibition!) But for a Congressman or Senator to just BLATANTLY SUPPORT VIOLATING THE 2nd AMENDMENT is FOOLISH and very BAD FORM - as well as being grounds for his RECALL by his constituents.

There are people who would say it's TREASONOUS to propose such a thing! I'm not sure if that's the case or not. Only a seasoned legal mind could be certain of that fact. However, if the people of the US want to change or alter the 2nd Amendment - then do it legally!

Personally, I suspect that on sober reflection - over time - the majority of the people in the US will come to the conclusion that we have far more to fear from a potentially oppressive government regime than we have to worry about from an occasional nutcase going berserk and shooting up a school. While outlawing guns may take them away from honest citizens (at least from some honest citizens) there will always be a criminal element that manage to obtain and use weapons when and how they please!

As things come out about the boy in Connecticut who is said to have perpetrated these horrors - the fact that he was mentally ill had been obvious for a long time and in many different ways. No one, including his own mother or father were willing or able to insist that he get help. The blame for this tragedy doesn't belong with the Gun Manufacturers. It belongs with parents and a society that would rather deny mental illness exists than help a mentally ill youngster before it's too late to help them!

Last Edited by MarkinAZ on 12/21/2012 09:10 PM

Fallacy of fallacy refute the rest of the information

Fallacy of fallacy refute the rest of the information

Fallacy of fallacy refute the rest of the information

That thing is "proof" of nothing.. i already shot it down just by the date alone even if what you proffer is really written there. it is nothing more than hopelessly foolish wishful thinking.

you are just plain pathetic now.. transparent as a paid shill for the commie left.

I wish only the worst for you, once again... die in a fire you POS.