bahmer

And shall we assume from your post that you are in favor of oppressive governments. I guess those that want to be oppressed would favor background checks and those of us that oppose being oppressed would be in favor of no background checks.

Since I do not like being oppressed and having my rights taken from me little by little and I being a conservative will continue my fight against said background checks.

Also having history on my side which shows what countries do after they remove the guns from the populace I will do everything in my power to keep my guns and my freedom.

viet vet

The legal restraints on the government are much more strict then they are against the NRA , and it is true the NRA has a political agenda , so do I trust the government guardedly yes , the NRA not in the slightest

MPLSMAN Loc: Bloomington, MN

I have to agree.

bahmer

Yes after the NSA scandal and the IRS scandal you still trust the government? Also what political agenda does this horrible organization the NRA have anyway, could it be freedom as described in the second amendment now that would truly be treasonous. I will continue supporting this horrible free market institution that supports our constitution and continue to distrust this government of liberals that is hell bent on taking every red blooded Americans freedoms from them.

MPLSMAN Loc: Bloomington, MN

If you were, indeed, fearful of losing your freedoms you would be out protesting the Patriot Act put in place under president Dick Cheney (Yes. PRESIDENT CHENEY, as he was running the show).
George Dumbya Bush was just a figurehead.

viet vet

you are stepping on an Icon of conservative dogma , this is the same type that were part of a poll where 29 percent of either Mississippi or Louisiana blamed Obama for Katrina , logic for these people is not essential

bahmer

I personally was never in favor of this act and I hold Bush responsible fro putting it in effect. But I do believe that OIllegal has taken this act and expanded by a large factor as he is now using it against american citizens as a tool to win e******ns and to suppress the citizenry.

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, viet vet: OMG another sycophant lemming drone Obamaite for 1PP. What legal restraints on the government, pray tell, are you talking about. OIllegal recognizes not the Constitution, nor any other constraint, and you would rely upon his exhibited good faith to comply with established laws and the Constitution he swore to uphold but doesn't. You have just certified you're brain dead.

The viet vet CHE Alinskyite


Wood Headed Democrap Logic


In the Constitution - but OIllegal could care less

MPLSMAN Loc: Bloomington, MN

It is people like this who are giving Conservatives and Republicans a bad name.
I would love for one of you to disclaim such rhetoric so we can have an intelligent meaningful dialogue on which direction we can go from here.

viet vet

since I have been posting and reading those things you have written you have been right(no pun intended) once when you talked about Russia rearming , but when you get into politics you are so far out sight and so very wrong , you shouldn't talk about brain dead since your not having one you do not have the ability to be brain dead which in your case would be a blessing

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, MPLSMAN: OMG another newbie brain dead lemming drone for 1PP. Your problem isn't rhetoric, it's your lemming drone ideologue. And, there is no chance for a dialog with a brain dead lemming drone, so why bother.

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, viet vet: You can't handle the t***h, is your problem. You haven't come close to reading the 1500 + posts I have put up since July 31, when you jumped on 1PP newbie. So you just lied, and got caught in it. You appear to be another toady CHE obstructionist Alinskyite. Keep it up and we will all know for sure. Nor have you exhibited any profound intelligence that you ipse dixit attempt to posture.

Clown


You can go to Hell for lying the same as you can for being a Obamaite lemming drone


Give it up viet vet - you exhibit you haven't got a clue or a chance

Tasine Loc: Southwest US

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Yes, I did. But do you think we would be forever free of tyrants if we have NO WAY to fight back, even a little bit? You DO KNOW, don't you, that the second amendment is specifically crafted to ward off tyrannical and oppressive government actions? And to that end for for that purpose it states the rightshall not be infringed upon. "Infringed upon" is a little different from "banned".

infringe .......verb (used with object)
1.
to commit a breach or infraction of; violate or t***sgress: to infringe a copyright; to infringe a rule.
verb (used without object)
2.
to encroach or trespass (usually followed by on or upon ): Don't infringe on his privacy


ban
1 [ban] Show IPA verb, banned, ban·ning, noun
verb (used with object)
1.
to prohibit, forbid, or bar; interdict: to ban nuclear weapons; The dictator banned all newspapers and books that criticized his regime.
2.
Archaic.
a.
to pronounce an ecclesiastical curse upon.
b.
to curse; execrate.
noun
3.
the act of prohibiting by law; interdiction.
4.
informal denunciation or prohibition, as by public opinion: society's ban on racial discrimination.
5.
Law.
a. a proclamation.
b. a public condemnation.
6. Ecclesiastical . a formal condemnation; excommunication.
7.
a malediction; curse.


I maintain that "shall not be infringed upon" means "shall not be touched", "shall not be tinkered with". Can you show me it does not mean this? Forcing users to go through maneuvers not necessary for other items, is infringing upon rights and is unconstitutional.

viet vet

if what you believe wasn't so out of bounds it would be funny but in reality it is sad as are you

CrazyHorse Loc: Kansas

Quid Pro Quo, Tasine: Well stated. But predicted here, it won't soak in a petrified mind. :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: