Batman movie massacre

Please go look arms up in a freaking dictionary and report back.

Unless you're trying to ****ing convince everyone the writers of the constitution literally meant that we all have a right to our own arms (body part) then you're completely wrong. But either way, you're embarrassing yourself.

At least use something like "Constitution is a living document"

 

He used tear gas. That stuff is quite the b*tch to do anything in let alone try and gun someone down. That's why he was wearing a gas mask. It wasn't people being pussies, it was just him being smart.

So yeah, I don't care how good of a shot you are, try hitting the two vulnerable spots on the guy (face and shin maybe?) while you're nearly blind and choking.

 

No, amid all of the chaos and smoke people wouldn't know wtf they're firing at or who they're firing at for that matter. The legality of guns was just a convenience for him. Staying armed? Like that's been helping Americans ever so much. Really helped in this situation now didn't it?

 

Why don't you buy a nuke as well? That's classed as 'arms'.

 

They did manage to link it to gaming....

Learn more: http://www.naturalnews.com/036536_James_Holmes_shooting_false_flag.html#ixzz21IDsR7Cz
(from post #91 made by harkinsteven)

Not sure where you're getting your information here....but it's not accurate...

No, the constitution specifically gives you the right to own a weapon....nowhere does it state that you have the right to own a gun, specifically....

Actually he's right. The US Constitution does not specifically give anyone the right to own a gun. It gives US Citizens the right to own a weapon of their choosing, hense why it says "the right to keep and bear arms"....and not "the right to keep and bear guns"....

Why would anyone be worried about a UN ban on weapons in the US?? The UN doesn't have the authority to issue a ban on weapons in the US....nor does the US Government without a vote to repeal the second amendment to the US Constitution that guarantees the right of all individuals to keep and bear arms....which the NRA will ensure never happens.

 

/facepalm

I'm done with this one.

I'll e-mail you at the end of the week to see if you've won.

EDIT: Both of you are being ridiculous, what, you think they meant, after just having won a war in which men literally took our their hunting rifles and fought an oppressive government, you think they meant the right to bear a ****ing axe?

 

A gun is an arm. This means that it's protected under the second amendment. Seriously, guns existed when that amendment was written.

 

Surly you have to realize how wrong that statement is.

The man wants to have a gun, so you use a strawman statement to make him look full-on maniacal.

It's no different than saying, "Why don't you kick all the pregnant women you see in the stomach, since you got an abortion?"

 

The natural response when you're wrong here seems to be to immediately rig up them strawmen.

 

I guess you haven't seen this.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WSzZAOQnYFI

Panetta admits they take orders from UN.

 

"Taking orders" isn't the same thing as "Going with something because there is a reward at the end and a "valid" reason to go after it".

The UN doesn't have a central authority that can give orders to our government, much less enforce said orders.

 

I'm well aware of how long guns have existed, but the constitution at no point mentions guns. It specifically states "arms"....not guns. The constitution does not give you the right to own a gun, it gives you the right to "keep and bear arms"....as stated here:

It also originally intended that people, as members of a regulated militia, were guaranteed the right to keep and bear arms. During the revolution, guns weren't the only weapons used. Pitchforks, knives, shovels, scythes (which were used for cutting wheat, grain, etc), swords, etc were also used.

 

Did you watch the video?

 

Don't need to watch the video. Fact is, the neither the UN or the US Government has the authority to ban weapons in the US. It takes a 2/3 majority vote to repeal or add an Amendment to the constitution, which is impossible to get with the current congress....and repealing the 2nd Amendment is required to ban weapons in the US.....which the NRA has enough lobbyists to ensure it never happens. Also, the UN has no authority over any member nation....it's all elective and the US Government can't elect to violate the constitution.

 

Why? Breivik complained about strict Norwegian guns laws and wrote that he envies the US laws. Breivik had to settle for the only military grade weapon he could buy in Norway because he didn't succeed in buying better when visiting other European countries.

If hammers cause a lot of problems, and they do..there's a reason killers use guns..it's because it makes the killing easier then the answer obviously isn't more hammers.

 

I don't understand what your point is. Saying the constitution doesn't protect your right to own a gun simply because "gun" isn't the word used is asinine at best. A gun is an arm, and was considered one when that amendment was written since it was in existence. I'm pretty sure if the founding fathers didn't consider a gun to be an arm, they would have specifically stated that. So, guns are protected just the same as knives, pitchforks, dildos, whatever else you want to classify as an arm.

I did, and all he does is dick around the questions that are asked of him like any politician and reveal that yes, the military can do stuff without congressional approval if there is a "back door" of sorts, like the UN permitting or encouraging some type of military action.

This in no way says that the entire government or military actually takes orders from the UN or that it has to follow mandates/legislation/whatever. It's just a loophole the military can use to get crap that it wants (aka, regional influence, resources, etc).

It's not a good thing, but unless you're implying the UN itself is controlled by some 1st tier power (like the Illuminati), it's nonsensical to believe that it "gives orders".

 

Well... fists were also used in close combat. Should only fists be allowed?

I fail to see where you're getting at. All you're listing is other things, besides guns which count as an arm, that were used in the war.

 

See my above post. Breivik had difficulties in getting what he got, he even ended up modifying the only military grade weapon he could buy in Norway. He wanted other weapons but couldn't get his hands on them. As the police say he would have had trouble in getting what ended up getting in Sweden at all. Would have made mass-killings more difficult..

 

Of course it's about business. Why do you think NRA is working so hard to influence politicians? Why do candidates go to NRA to have their speeches there? It's because there is influence and there is influence because there is money. And they spend billions of dollars in selling these weapons to the masses, because they want to become rich.

NRA-led gun lobby wields powerful influence over ATF, U.S. politics
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/14/AR2010121406045.html

Almost anything is about money. This is why you see liberties being taken away, because there is a lot of money in surveillance.

 

Just because he wasn't able to get one doesn't mean they aren't obtainable. I mean, it's not like you can walk into a gun store in the U.S. and walk out with an electric gatling gun. Automatics are explicitly restricted and quite hard to come by legally. As are really any military quality weapons. Sure, you can buy semi automatic AR-15's, but I'm quite sure you can get an equivalent performing rifle in Europe legally somewhere.