RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it.

RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion

Message

joether -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/1/2015 12:55:28 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You remember Justice Stevens don't you? In his preferred wording of the 2nd he highlighted the fact that the writers did not make the right to bear arms a privilege of militia members but made it a right of citizens. It wasn't his intent but he did it. Answer me this in all honesty: Is it possible for the US Supreme Court to rule things incorrectly? Meaning they are just as likely as any other person to....FUCK UP....and make costly mistakes? The answer is 'yes'. Since this is the same US Supreme Court that believes Corporations are people too! And those Corporations can have religious beliefs that trump individuals of their religious beliefs. The Justices that pushed that stupid ruling on Heller vs. D.C., did not make a Constitutional ruling, but a political ruling. They are NOT allowed to reinterpret an amendment; which is exactly what they did! They can interpret an amendment, but the one ones that can....reinterpret....an amendment is Congress and with only four methods. What was wrong with Heller vs. D.C.? The firearm in question was the offier's own property and not for use with "A well regulated militia...". Could the firearm have been used with his day job? Yes, however, its use was not authorized nor allowed permission with said "....regulated militia....". The police were well within their right to be worried about an unlawful death due to the firearm and the lawsuits that would soon follow from it. Since that firearm would be used (most likely) during the time the officer is off duty. I'm not saying the laws in D.C. at the time were good or bad, but were the 'laws of the land' at the time. The correct way to change the law(s) would be with legislative action on the part of the good citizens of that area. Not 'Legislating from the Bench' to which conservatives argue towards liberals on other issues. If its not 'ok' for liberals to do; then its equally not 'ok' for conservatives to do either! Normally the US Supreme Court only interferes with a ruling if the local judge and the appeal's court disagree. In this case, both courts were in full agreement. So why did the matter get taken up but the......five conservative justices at the time....? All of whom put in power by Republicans? And that Republicans hold a....very....tight relationship with the NRA? It doesn't take a rocket science (or a political science major in college) to tell this was a 'set up' from the beginning. That your 'conflict of interest' shows you can not look at that case objectively. If the US Supreme Court was doing its job correctly, they would never have stepped into the matter in the first place. That's what we call 'responsibility with power'.

BamaD -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/1/2015 2:31:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You remember Justice Stevens don't you? In his preferred wording of the 2nd he highlighted the fact that the writers did not make the right to bear arms a privilege of militia members but made it a right of citizens. It wasn't his intent but he did it. Answer me this in all honesty: Is it possible for the US Supreme Court to rule things incorrectly? Meaning they are just as likely as any other person to....FUCK UP....and make costly mistakes? The answer is 'yes'. Since this is the same US Supreme Court that believes Corporations are people too! And those Corporations can have religious beliefs that trump individuals of their religious beliefs. The Justices that pushed that stupid ruling on Heller vs. D.C., did not make a Constitutional ruling, but a political ruling. They are NOT allowed to reinterpret an amendment; which is exactly what they did! They can interpret an amendment, but the one ones that can....reinterpret....an amendment is Congress and with only four methods. What was wrong with Heller vs. D.C.? The firearm in question was the offier's own property and not for use with "A well regulated militia...". Could the firearm have been used with his day job? Yes, however, its use was not authorized nor allowed permission with said "....regulated militia....". The police were well within their right to be worried about an unlawful death due to the firearm and the lawsuits that would soon follow from it. Since that firearm would be used (most likely) during the time the officer is off duty. I'm not saying the laws in D.C. at the time were good or bad, but were the 'laws of the land' at the time. The correct way to change the law(s) would be with legislative action on the part of the good citizens of that area. Not 'Legislating from the Bench' to which conservatives argue towards liberals on other issues. If its not 'ok' for liberals to do; then its equally not 'ok' for conservatives to do either! Normally the US Supreme Court only interferes with a ruling if the local judge and the appeal's court disagree. In this case, both courts were in full agreement. So why did the matter get taken up but the......five conservative justices at the time....? All of whom put in power by Republicans? And that Republicans hold a....very....tight relationship with the NRA? It doesn't take a rocket science (or a political science major in college) to tell this was a 'set up' from the beginning. That your 'conflict of interest' shows you can not look at that case objectively. If the US Supreme Court was doing its job correctly, they would never have stepped into the matter in the first place. That's what we call 'responsibility with power'. Dred Scott They ruled in Heller in accordance with what you have(months ago) acknowledged as original intent.

BamaD -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/1/2015 2:32:48 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You remember Justice Stevens don't you? In his preferred wording of the 2nd he highlighted the fact that the writers did not make the right to bear arms a privilege of militia members but made it a right of citizens. It wasn't his intent but he did it. Answer me this in all honesty: Is it possible for the US Supreme Court to rule things incorrectly? Meaning they are just as likely as any other person to....FUCK UP....and make costly mistakes? The answer is 'yes'. Since this is the same US Supreme Court that believes Corporations are people too! And those Corporations can have religious beliefs that trump individuals of their religious beliefs. The Justices that pushed that stupid ruling on Heller vs. D.C., did not make a Constitutional ruling, but a political ruling. They are NOT allowed to reinterpret an amendment; which is exactly what they did! They can interpret an amendment, but the one ones that can....reinterpret....an amendment is Congress and with only four methods. What was wrong with Heller vs. D.C.? The firearm in question was the offier's own property and not for use with "A well regulated militia...". Could the firearm have been used with his day job? Yes, however, its use was not authorized nor allowed permission with said "....regulated militia....". The police were well within their right to be worried about an unlawful death due to the firearm and the lawsuits that would soon follow from it. Since that firearm would be used (most likely) during the time the officer is off duty. I'm not saying the laws in D.C. at the time were good or bad, but were the 'laws of the land' at the time. The correct way to change the law(s) would be with legislative action on the part of the good citizens of that area. Not 'Legislating from the Bench' to which conservatives argue towards liberals on other issues. If its not 'ok' for liberals to do; then its equally not 'ok' for conservatives to do either! Normally the US Supreme Court only interferes with a ruling if the local judge and the appeal's court disagree. In this case, both courts were in full agreement. So why did the matter get taken up but the......five conservative justices at the time....? All of whom put in power by Republicans? And that Republicans hold a....very....tight relationship with the NRA? It doesn't take a rocket science (or a political science major in college) to tell this was a 'set up' from the beginning. That your 'conflict of interest' shows you can not look at that case objectively. If the US Supreme Court was doing its job correctly, they would never have stepped into the matter in the first place. That's what we call 'responsibility with power'. So Justice Steven's word is no longer gospel?

BamaD -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/1/2015 11:58:05 AM)
FR A few years back we had an incident in Montgomery (AL) A man broke into a woman's house to attack her. She broke away and ran outside. He caught her knocked her down, and proceeded with the attack. At this point he heard the slide of a shotgun. Looking around he found 3 or 4 neighbors who objected to his actions all of whom had shotguns. After very little thought he accepted their suggestion that he lay spread eagle on the ground and wait for the police. They were trained well enough to know how to use their arms. They were disciplined enough to take action when needed, and to not turn into a mob. This fit the writers definition of a militia.

crazyml -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/1/2015 1:38:30 PM)
Yeah, you make good points, and I should not have been as facetious in my response. I concede that the tyranny of the majority is something that any democratic system needs to guard against, but it is also possible to go too far in seeking to protect against the majority view. I also tale your point that the USA is not a pure democracy (not intended as a dig) The likes of Bentham and Mills would have approved of the 4th and 5th amendments being "immutable", I am just not sure the some of the others are.

Aylee -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/1/2015 2:42:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You remember Justice Stevens don't you? In his preferred wording of the 2nd he highlighted the fact that the writers did not make the right to bear arms a privilege of militia members but made it a right of citizens. It wasn't his intent but he did it. Answer me this in all honesty: Is it possible for the US Supreme Court to rule things incorrectly? Meaning they are just as likely as any other person to....FUCK UP....and make costly mistakes? The answer is 'yes'. Since this is the same US Supreme Court that believes Corporations are people too! And those Corporations can have religious beliefs that trump individuals of their religious beliefs. The Justices that pushed that stupid ruling on Heller vs. D.C., did not make a Constitutional ruling, but a political ruling. They are NOT allowed to reinterpret an amendment; which is exactly what they did! They can interpret an amendment, but the one ones that can....reinterpret....an amendment is Congress and with only four methods. What was wrong with Heller vs. D.C.? The firearm in question was the offier's own property and not for use with "A well regulated militia...". Could the firearm have been used with his day job? Yes, however, its use was not authorized nor allowed permission with said "....regulated militia....". The police were well within their right to be worried about an unlawful death due to the firearm and the lawsuits that would soon follow from it. Since that firearm would be used (most likely) during the time the officer is off duty. I'm not saying the laws in D.C. at the time were good or bad, but were the 'laws of the land' at the time. The correct way to change the law(s) would be with legislative action on the part of the good citizens of that area. Not 'Legislating from the Bench' to which conservatives argue towards liberals on other issues. If its not 'ok' for liberals to do; then its equally not 'ok' for conservatives to do either! Normally the US Supreme Court only interferes with a ruling if the local judge and the appeal's court disagree. In this case, both courts were in full agreement. So why did the matter get taken up but the......five conservative justices at the time....? All of whom put in power by Republicans? And that Republicans hold a....very....tight relationship with the NRA? It doesn't take a rocket science (or a political science major in college) to tell this was a 'set up' from the beginning. That your 'conflict of interest' shows you can not look at that case objectively. If the US Supreme Court was doing its job correctly, they would never have stepped into the matter in the first place. That's what we call 'responsibility with power'. Dred Scott They ruled in Heller in accordance with what you have(months ago) acknowledged as original intent. So what about Roe v Wade? That was legislating from the bench.

BamaD -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/1/2015 7:58:52 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD quote: ORIGINAL: joether quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD You remember Justice Stevens don't you? In his preferred wording of the 2nd he highlighted the fact that the writers did not make the right to bear arms a privilege of militia members but made it a right of citizens. It wasn't his intent but he did it. Answer me this in all honesty: Is it possible for the US Supreme Court to rule things incorrectly? Meaning they are just as likely as any other person to....FUCK UP....and make costly mistakes? The answer is 'yes'. Since this is the same US Supreme Court that believes Corporations are people too! And those Corporations can have religious beliefs that trump individuals of their religious beliefs. The Justices that pushed that stupid ruling on Heller vs. D.C., did not make a Constitutional ruling, but a political ruling. They are NOT allowed to reinterpret an amendment; which is exactly what they did! They can interpret an amendment, but the one ones that can....reinterpret....an amendment is Congress and with only four methods. What was wrong with Heller vs. D.C.? The firearm in question was the offier's own property and not for use with "A well regulated militia...". Could the firearm have been used with his day job? Yes, however, its use was not authorized nor allowed permission with said "....regulated militia....". The police were well within their right to be worried about an unlawful death due to the firearm and the lawsuits that would soon follow from it. Since that firearm would be used (most likely) during the time the officer is off duty. I'm not saying the laws in D.C. at the time were good or bad, but were the 'laws of the land' at the time. The correct way to change the law(s) would be with legislative action on the part of the good citizens of that area. Not 'Legislating from the Bench' to which conservatives argue towards liberals on other issues. If its not 'ok' for liberals to do; then its equally not 'ok' for conservatives to do either! Normally the US Supreme Court only interferes with a ruling if the local judge and the appeal's court disagree. In this case, both courts were in full agreement. So why did the matter get taken up but the......five conservative justices at the time....? All of whom put in power by Republicans? And that Republicans hold a....very....tight relationship with the NRA? It doesn't take a rocket science (or a political science major in college) to tell this was a 'set up' from the beginning. That your 'conflict of interest' shows you can not look at that case objectively. If the US Supreme Court was doing its job correctly, they would never have stepped into the matter in the first place. That's what we call 'responsibility with power'. Dred Scott They ruled in Heller in accordance with what you have(months ago) acknowledged as original intent. So what about Roe v Wade? That was legislating from the bench. I could have used a couple of pages on bad Court Rulings. I just picked the one least likely to create a derail.

slvemike4u -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/1/2015 8:23:44 PM)
Roe v Wade was not a bad court ruling,now Citizens United,that was a doozy [8\|]

quizzicalkitten -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/1/2015 8:45:19 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml When laws are out-dated, ambiguous, or simply fucking stupid, the courts have to interpret them.... which leaves determining what the law is in the hands of an unelected body. Where the law is so poorly defined, or so out of date, that weird interpretations come from the courts, it's time for people to put their thinking hats on and figure out, democratically, what the law should be. Except the law doesnt need to change...It still makes sense in todays world Picture this (some commentary added for clarity and humor, pardon all the fucks its been a wonderful day of drinking and debauchery. )... its the 1600's and you have this fuck all government that's bat shit fucking crazy called England, you had some king who killed nearly every woman he married either because they were "witches" or couldnt magically make his sperm give him a male child, you had the religion you practiced changed with each whore he slept with, you had constant uncertainty, you could be spared one day for being catholic, and then killed for it the next... So the people hearing this great news of this new world, said Fuck This Shit and get on this boat risking life and limb, to get away from these crazy mother fuckers that cant make up their fucking mind called the English royalty. So fast forward a 100 or so years, you have these people who risked all to get rid of the crazy and yet, those mother fuckers still have to have their fingers in every fucking pie out there... you want tea, we will tax that shit, you want paper, we will tax that shit. Fucking forget you made it here yourself in this grand old colony you have we are still going to tax that shit, and fuck it all the psychosis has crossed the fucking seas, So we got on a boat for 3 or more months, to get away from these fuckers. We crossed a fucking ocean, DIED from illness and lack of food, and otherwise took some AMAZING steps to say FUCK YOU MOTHER FUCKERS leave us alone.... and they are back ruling us, telling us how to live again telling us whats right and wrong...... weve had enough.... So we rebel. and we sit down and we think what did we hate about these stupid crazy mother fucking English, We hated that as our government what they said was absolute, that we as a people had NO say, we were at the complete whim of some guy who cant figure out that being a crazy mofo isnt good for a leader, and our biggest problem the reason why the war was so hard, and why our ancestors in general had it so hard rebelling against this crap.... We didnt have the means to really fight them. They had guns we had pitch forks... So let it be said that all the people of this great land can be armed, they can have guns because when the government goes bat shit fucking crazy like EVERY government seems to do eventually, they can rebel, they can win the fight against the bat shit fucking crazy people and they can start over... and they put in these nifty restrictions on what the government can or can not do, so the people have more of a choice in what they personally can or cant do, and if the state they live in has laws they hate, they can go to a state that has laws more to their liking... and the government cant say Jack fucking shit about it unless this document says... you wanna change that document, the overwhelming majority of the nation has to be behind you to make those changes... WOW Its like the founding fathers were really fucking smart, they said fucking england needs to butt the fuck out, and we dont want to be as stupid as they are... How about this for you crazy, Stay in fucking bat shit England, enjoy your stupidity of not being armed, of having the most boring porn Ive ever had the displeasure of watching and being ass raped by your government when ever they decide its whats best for you, Ill stay in America, and enjoy my gun, and my ammo, my face sitting, cum dripping twisted delicious porn.... and when my government says bend over baby, its time to be ass raped because we know whats best for you really we do, I can say fuck that shit... and not...

Aylee -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/1/2015 9:46:09 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Roe v Wade was not a bad court ruling,now Citizens United,that was a doozy [8\|] But it was the legislating from the bench being railed against.

BamaD -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/1/2015 9:53:47 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Aylee quote: ORIGINAL: slvemike4u Roe v Wade was not a bad court ruling,now Citizens United,that was a doozy [8\|] But it was the legislating from the bench being railed against. Regardless of what you think of Roe V Wade it did create a new right. But you see why I didn't use it for fear of helping derailment. The Separate but Equal ruling was another.

GotSteel -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/2/2015 7:01:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Regardless of what you think of Roe V Wade it did create a new right. This is of course my point. There are numerous interpretations/clarifications that have been made to the constitution that people can disagree with AND that is different from wanting to repeal the original amendment.

mnottertail -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/2/2015 7:23:17 AM)
http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2014/12/15/reasonable-mistake-of-law-can-generate-reasonable-suspicion-supreme-court-holds/ more legislating from the bench. Fourth Amendment now meaningless.

hot4bondage -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/2/2015 8:10:22 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml When laws are out-dated, ambiguous, or simply fucking stupid, the courts have to interpret them.... which leaves determining what the law is in the hands of an unelected body. Where the law is so poorly defined, or so out of date, that weird interpretations come from the courts, it's time for people to put their thinking hats on and figure out, democratically, what the law should be. Except the law doesnt need to change...It still makes sense in todays world Picture this (some commentary added for clarity and humor, pardon all the fucks its been a wonderful day of drinking and debauchery. )... its the 1600's and you have this fuck all government that's bat shit fucking crazy called England, you had some king who killed nearly every woman he married either because they were "witches" or couldnt magically make his sperm give him a male child, you had the religion you practiced changed with each whore he slept with, you had constant uncertainty, you could be spared one day for being catholic, and then killed for it the next... So the people hearing this great news of this new world, said Fuck This Shit and get on this boat risking life and limb, to get away from these crazy mother fuckers that cant make up their fucking mind called the English royalty. So fast forward a 100 or so years, you have these people who risked all to get rid of the crazy and yet, those mother fuckers still have to have their fingers in every fucking pie out there... you want tea, we will tax that shit, you want paper, we will tax that shit. Fucking forget you made it here yourself in this grand old colony you have we are still going to tax that shit, and fuck it all the psychosis has crossed the fucking seas, So we got on a boat for 3 or more months, to get away from these fuckers. We crossed a fucking ocean, DIED from illness and lack of food, and otherwise took some AMAZING steps to say FUCK YOU MOTHER FUCKERS leave us alone.... and they are back ruling us, telling us how to live again telling us whats right and wrong...... weve had enough.... So we rebel. and we sit down and we think what did we hate about these stupid crazy mother fucking English, We hated that as our government what they said was absolute, that we as a people had NO say, we were at the complete whim of some guy who cant figure out that being a crazy mofo isnt good for a leader, and our biggest problem the reason why the war was so hard, and why our ancestors in general had it so hard rebelling against this crap.... We didnt have the means to really fight them. They had guns we had pitch forks... So let it be said that all the people of this great land can be armed, they can have guns because when the government goes bat shit fucking crazy like EVERY government seems to do eventually, they can rebel, they can win the fight against the bat shit fucking crazy people and they can start over... and they put in these nifty restrictions on what the government can or can not do, so the people have more of a choice in what they personally can or cant do, and if the state they live in has laws they hate, they can go to a state that has laws more to their liking... and the government cant say Jack fucking shit about it unless this document says... you wanna change that document, the overwhelming majority of the nation has to be behind you to make those changes... WOW Its like the founding fathers were really fucking smart, they said fucking england needs to butt the fuck out, and we dont want to be as stupid as they are... How about this for you crazy, Stay in fucking bat shit England, enjoy your stupidity of not being armed, of having the most boring porn Ive ever had the displeasure of watching and being ass raped by your government when ever they decide its whats best for you, Ill stay in America, and enjoy my gun, and my ammo, my face sitting, cum dripping twisted delicious porn.... and when my government says bend over baby, its time to be ass raped because we know whats best for you really we do, I can say fuck that shit... and not... Wow! And I thought I was passionate about liberty. These are for you. [sm=flowers.gif]

BamaD -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/2/2015 8:20:16 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: GotSteel quote: ORIGINAL: BamaD Regardless of what you think of Roe V Wade it did create a new right. This is of course my point. There are numerous interpretations/clarifications that have been made to the constitution that people can disagree with AND that is different from wanting to repeal the original amendment. And I still say that when you "re-interpret" a portion of the constitution you repeal the original clause and replace it with something else by stealth means. if you want to change it, change it, don't hide behind this "living document" garbage.

lovmuffin -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/2/2015 10:08:01 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: quizzicalkitten quote: ORIGINAL: crazyml When laws are out-dated, ambiguous, or simply fucking stupid, the courts have to interpret them.... which leaves determining what the law is in the hands of an unelected body. Where the law is so poorly defined, or so out of date, that weird interpretations come from the courts, it's time for people to put their thinking hats on and figure out, democratically, what the law should be. Except the law doesnt need to change...It still makes sense in todays world Picture this (some commentary added for clarity and humor, pardon all the fucks its been a wonderful day of drinking and debauchery. )... its the 1600's and you have this fuck all government that's bat shit fucking crazy called England, you had some king who killed nearly every woman he married either because they were "witches" or couldnt magically make his sperm give him a male child, you had the religion you practiced changed with each whore he slept with, you had constant uncertainty, you could be spared one day for being catholic, and then killed for it the next... So the people hearing this great news of this new world, said Fuck This Shit and get on this boat risking life and limb, to get away from these crazy mother fuckers that cant make up their fucking mind called the English royalty. So fast forward a 100 or so years, you have these people who risked all to get rid of the crazy and yet, those mother fuckers still have to have their fingers in every fucking pie out there... you want tea, we will tax that shit, you want paper, we will tax that shit. Fucking forget you made it here yourself in this grand old colony you have we are still going to tax that shit, and fuck it all the psychosis has crossed the fucking seas, So we got on a boat for 3 or more months, to get away from these fuckers. We crossed a fucking ocean, DIED from illness and lack of food, and otherwise took some AMAZING steps to say FUCK YOU MOTHER FUCKERS leave us alone.... and they are back ruling us, telling us how to live again telling us whats right and wrong...... weve had enough.... So we rebel. and we sit down and we think what did we hate about these stupid crazy mother fucking English, We hated that as our government what they said was absolute, that we as a people had NO say, we were at the complete whim of some guy who cant figure out that being a crazy mofo isnt good for a leader, and our biggest problem the reason why the war was so hard, and why our ancestors in general had it so hard rebelling against this crap.... We didnt have the means to really fight them. They had guns we had pitch forks... So let it be said that all the people of this great land can be armed, they can have guns because when the government goes bat shit fucking crazy like EVERY government seems to do eventually, they can rebel, they can win the fight against the bat shit fucking crazy people and they can start over... and they put in these nifty restrictions on what the government can or can not do, so the people have more of a choice in what they personally can or cant do, and if the state they live in has laws they hate, they can go to a state that has laws more to their liking... and the government cant say Jack fucking shit about it unless this document says... you wanna change that document, the overwhelming majority of the nation has to be behind you to make those changes... WOW Its like the founding fathers were really fucking smart, they said fucking england needs to butt the fuck out, and we dont want to be as stupid as they are... How about this for you crazy, Stay in fucking bat shit England, enjoy your stupidity of not being armed, of having the most boring porn Ive ever had the displeasure of watching and being ass raped by your government when ever they decide its whats best for you, Ill stay in America, and enjoy my gun, and my ammo, my face sitting, cum dripping twisted delicious porn.... and when my government says bend over baby, its time to be ass raped because we know whats best for you really we do, I can say fuck that shit... and not... Oh come on now, tell us how you really feel[8D]

Lucylastic -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/2/2015 10:53:16 AM)
quizzicalkitten Henry VIII died in 1547 NOT the 1600s, BUT yes to 16th century(I know it can be SOOOO confusing) Henry AND England were more than aware of the PROTESTANT reformation movement, which was started by a german called martin Luther with his 95 Theses in 1517. Calvinism didn't come into being until 1558, Your lack of historical accuracy to begin with negates your entire drivel and hatred of us furrigners. Congrats, quite a rant, but barely factual Protestants AND Catholics were killed by different kings and queens after Henry depending on their "religious beliefs" Mary (catholic) killed thousands, as did Edward,, Elizabeth, James and Charles, which is where we hit the puritans migrating to the colony. They were PROTESTANTS and CALVINISTS, presbyterians, and other "offshoots" of Protestantism Puritans (especially see Oliver Cromwell) had power over government AFTER the civil war in 1653-1658 Of course Germany, Holland, Spain, France, had nothing to do with " mass" emigrations to the US bringing their own brand of "Protestantism" to the US Next.

lovmuffin -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/2/2015 11:14:57 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quizzicalkitten Henry VIII died in 1547 NOT the 1600s, BUT yes to 16th century(I know it can be SOOOO confusing) Henry AND England were more than aware of the PROTESTANT reformation movement, which was started by a german called martin Luther with his 95 Theses in 1517. Calvinism didn't come into being until 1558, Your lack of historical accuracy to begin with negates your entire drivel and hatred of us furrigners. Congrats, quite a rant, but barely factual Protestants AND Catholics were killed by different kings and queens after Henry depending on their "religious beliefs" Mary (catholic) killed thousands, as did Edward,, Elizabeth, James and Charles, which is where we hit the puritans migrating to the colony. They were PROTESTANTS and CALVINISTS, presbyterians, and other "offshoots" of Protestantism Puritans (especially see Oliver Cromwell) had power over government AFTER the civil war in 1653-1658 Of course Germany, Holland, Spain, France, had nothing to do with " mass" emigrations to the US bringing their own brand of "Protestantism" to the US Next. So..........strike the third paragraph. We still got guns and porno (pardon the grammar). They got steak knives and cameras on every street corner.

mnottertail -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/2/2015 11:21:38 AM)
I would rather eat a good steak.

Lucylastic -> RE: Why would you want to chip away at the 2nd amendment instead of trying to repeal it. (1/2/2015 11:23:14 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: lovmuffin quote: ORIGINAL: Lucylastic quizzicalkitten Henry VIII died in 1547 NOT the 1600s, BUT yes to 16th century(I know it can be SOOOO confusing) Henry AND England were more than aware of the PROTESTANT reformation movement, which was started by a german called martin Luther with his 95 Theses in 1517. Calvinism didn't come into being until 1558, Your lack of historical accuracy to begin with negates your entire drivel and hatred of us furrigners. Congrats, quite a rant, but barely factual Protestants AND Catholics were killed by different kings and queens after Henry depending on their "religious beliefs" Mary (catholic) killed thousands, as did Edward,, Elizabeth, James and Charles, which is where we hit the puritans migrating to the colony. They were PROTESTANTS and CALVINISTS, presbyterians, and other "offshoots" of Protestantism Puritans (especially see Oliver Cromwell) had power over government AFTER the civil war in 1653-1658 Of course Germany, Holland, Spain, France, had nothing to do with " mass" emigrations to the US bringing their own brand of "Protestantism" to the US Next. So..........strike the third paragraph. We still got guns and porno (pardon the grammar). They got steak knives and cameras on every street corner. another clueless load of crap

Page: << < prev 4 5 [6] 7 8 next > >>

Collarchat.com © 2025

Terms of Service

0.0625