Anal Check # 2: The second amendment.

The founders saw fit to include a guaranteed right to bear arms that had nothing to do with hunting or target shooting. It says in the amendment itself; A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed. What do you think?

You're absolutely correct. If I was a politician I would encourage and support Law Abiding Citizens to arm themselves if they so desired. I would also advocate training and safety courses and be instrumental in making it readily available. The criminal has no place in our society and sometimes violence must be met with violence.

You're absolutely correct. If I was a politician I would encourage and support Law Abiding Citizens to arm themselves if they so desired. I would also advocate training and safety courses and be instrumental in making it readily available. The criminal has no place in our society and sometimes violence must be met with violence. Originally Posted by Levianon17

For sure. Like those cunts that tried some insurrection on Jan 06th. They should have met some real violence. Good to see we agree! I have to say, you righties are really coming around.

I hate guns & will never own one

For sure. Like those cunts that tried some insurrection on Jan 06th. They should have met some real violence. Good to see we agree! I have to say, you righties are really coming around. Originally Posted by TechPapi

One Person did.

I hate guns & will never own one Originally Posted by VENUSNOVA

I've known a number of people that share that sentiment until they become a victim of a violent crime.

For sure. Like those cunts that tried some insurrection on Jan 06th. They should have met some real violence. Good to see we agree! I have to say, you righties are really coming around. Originally Posted by TechPapi

How many of those cunts did you say were armed?

According to the people on here, they all have fists so they were armed. As soon as they started attacking the police they should have been shot.

The 2nd is one of the very few legislative statements that is quite clear in its intent that no mangling of the english language can alter its meaning.

According to the people on here, they all have fists so they were armed. As soon as they started attacking the police they should have been shot. Originally Posted by 1blackman1

Except for the ones with no arms.

The 2nd is one of the very few legislative statements that is quite clear in its intent that no mangling of the english language can alter its meaning. Originally Posted by Unique_Carpenter

Yes some folks are constantly struggling to do just that.

Surplus Army tanks up for sale. Highest bidder. Very useful for those who need the latest armaments.


Refer to right to bear arms notations.

If you think a citizenry needs tanks and planes to stop a powerful military (like the USA) I’d suggest reading up on your history. Not that they shouldn’t have them, but they don’t need them.

I hate guns & will never own one Originally Posted by VENUSNOVA

Which is your right.

I didn't like the choices. For instance: Many crimes deserve punishment that limits more than just one right.

I would strongly suggest that those who want to limit private ownership or possession of firearms to simply repeal the Second Amendment. The Constitution provides several optional pathways for this. Its been done in the past quite effectively too. So go ahead and introduce the repeal legislation . . .and we will all see who votes for it.

Git 'er done!