I support the 2nd Amendment, period. Don't give up your guns people because they also help you defend yourself against the tyranny of government no matter who is president.
@ Jerrypro....taking guns away from people who have demonstrated that they are exactly the type of people who can't be trusted with them (felons) is fundamentally different from taking that right away from law abiding citizens. Furthermore, it is not the role of the Judiciary, but that of the Legislature (as the voice of the people) to decide whether to take that right away. And even then it must be done via constitutional amendment with all its attendant protective constitutional procedures.
4 of the Supreme Court justices have committed treason in my opinion. They should be impeached and removed from the court.
I can understand the 4 SCJ saying the cities county and states have a right to keep felons from having a gun because they lost certain right when convicted and mentally dangerous person if a court judge that person to so.
But laws like DC and Chicago are so far past that, the laws are not even laughable.
Most people have to wonder what kind of a dictionary that has definition that so corrupted the meaning of the words; bare, keep, shall, not, infringe, upon. That allowed the 4 SCJ was using it to be able to make an imbecile judgment.
Let's see if I got this right. The Bill of Rights which are the first ten Ammendments to our Constitution are rights that are inalienable, given to us by our Creator and not from our government. They are rights which our government has no power or authority to take away. Well if that is true it seems that the government has no right to deprive felons of their Second Ammendment right to bear arms.
@JERRYPRO121 They didn't let felons go free back then so they didn't have to worry about that. But now we got judges who actually have the gaul to be sympathetic to maniacs, muderers, and maniacs. Like the midget rapist in Iowa who got special treatment because the judge was afraid he'd be mistreated and sexually abused. I shit you not, I was workin up there and heard it on the radio.
We liberals are smart enough to not want guns in the hands of fools like this spaz! We take care of clowns like this the old fashioned way, a good beat down and he'll have a whole new attitude
@filoIII Wrong. The Anti-Espionage and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1994 (Clinton administration) created ALL the 4th amendment repeals the government now enjoys. The Patriot Act (Bush Administration) simply rounded up all the scattered regulations of the Clinton-era's act and consolidated them for legal ease. Furthermore, the 4th amendment only restricts the governments and police agencies and those working for them. If I sneak in your house and find something, you cant claim the 4th Am.
What is so bad about the Patriot Act? "Generally, the worst part of this so-called anti-terrorism bill is the increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants."--Ron Paul. He was referring to Section 213 (Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant), also known as the "sneak-and-peak" provision, which effectively allows police to avoid giving prior warning when searches of personal property are conducted. Thx, tho
@robbie8600 The cops will search your car or whatever, if you say yes or no......I have a relative that is a cop....You tell them to stay out of your car, they are going to search it any way......The patriot act is BS, go and get on a plane, the TSA will strip search your ass, all started with 911 and the patriot act....
what good are guns anyways if they wanted to they could wipe 90% of us out with a EMP we are powerless dont think they wouldnt turn the military on us i bet if we did a really big protest for something they dont want like for weed we would be face first on the ground but in truth they cant take our bornright every one has them its freewill but getting shot at isn't a good way of keeping freewill (i only have my life if im not hurting someone leave me be to do as i see fit like smokeing weed)
@DarkStatic69 I couldn't tell by your post if you knew this or not but guns do not run on electricity. Except for metal storm weapons. So EMPs wouldn't matter
i remember that day and when i told my co-workers there rereaction was a mindless blank stare and then to go back to talking about guys playing with a ball
There are no liberals, there are no democrats and no republicans - it is all a Great Party deceivingly divided in two, in order to give the Americans the ILLUSION of choice when they vote... It's like Pepsi and Cola - wake the fuck up, America!
@tuzmor You are correct. I believe we live in a two party dictatorship. These politicians try to make us believe their in two different parties but behind closed doors their patting eachother on the back and laughing.
I'll bet it was Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Stevens. Fucking liberals. They probably want to take away our rights to bear arms because they know that so many citizens want to shoot their heads off.
He is 100% correct. When the 2nd Amendment is gone so Goes Our Remaining Rights. And if you think our governement won't inforce their will on us. Do some research on Waco Tx. Our Government Burned them out and then shot women and childer as the tried to excape the buring buildings. You need to watch the film. It's all there, and then they Bold Fase Lied to Congress, We NEVER fired a single round at the complex. The film shows them fireing at the build, running tanks through the building .
136 dislikes. That means 136 people can choke on a cock without gagging and simultaneously vote for obama while also jerking off Mr. Janet Napalitano's massive hard dick while I zoom in for a close-up and see that they are also taking a mammoth TSA stuffing up their ass while begging for more safety while driving their fucking TOYOTA PRIUS!!!
@timd941 I think its a balance, the liberals voted against gun rights and the conservatives voted against everything else... human rights, abortion rights etc......
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with "guns for hunting". It's all about protecting us from the very people who want to disarm us. If and when they come for our guns, it is our right and duty to kill them.
Im with ya brother!! Glad to see another thinking American out there. Stay strong brother and be willing to fight to the end. It is a very scary world now. The scary thing is that people don't seem to care, and some are in fact supporting our government in their effort take away our freedoms and allowing them to become tyrannical dictators.
i think that people want them to try and take away our rights so they can take em back by force so we can say o the u.n. this is what will happen if you try and take away our rights you end up dead. just a theory idk if it's true hope not.
Go stab yourself in the throat with a knife asshole, since you hate guns. As was said in the video, when one right can be taken away, they all can. How much longer before the 1st goes away?
"Well, it's vital in a time of war that no one criticizes the government, so in the interest of 'national security', we have 'contracted' with the press to better explain our position."
@KKKSuperFan Hitler and Mao believed in gun banning and it worked. And what happened? 20+millions got tortured and murdered. The victims were totally defenseless. If you want to be that victim, I'm fine with it. And banning guns WILL NOT make society better off. Sure, there are shootings here and there. Those victims are the prices we have to pay for our freedom. The Constitution is the rule of law. If you think it's okay to take away the 2nd Amend, then someone can also take away your 1st Amend
So why hasn't anyone sued New York State? New York City? They still have laws saying that in upstate new york you cannot have a handgun in your HOME without permission from the government... In New York City, the right to own guns is DENIED!!!
@KKKSuperFan gun bans dont do shit, if a criminal wants a gun, he is gonna get one legally or not, criminals love gun laws, it takes guns away from people so then those innocent people cant defend themselves, if someone broke into your house, would you rather have a phone in your hand calling 911 and waiting 10 minutes minimum for them to show up, or a pistol and defending yourself, cops will arrive eventually, and take a picture of your dead body, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns
@KKKSuperFan Are you kidding me? A racist douchebag that wants guns BANNED? You have got to be shitting me.
By the way i like the nice manly mix of faggotkluxklan videos and kitty cat videos on your channel, it doesnt make you look like a weak ass little faggot in any way, shape or form trust me.
The liberals have brought Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens. Your destruction of this country may never be remedied, and we may never recover. I pray to God you stop, and I hope the people in this great country realize your agenda is not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics
You even have it wrong.Obama will not fill the positions on the court with judge but polictal hacks. Kagan is not and was not and can never be a judge. Every real judge out there that have served decades on the bench are being passed over for back room clerks. Hey you federal judges with years of service, Obama has said, SCREW YOU!
It's way too late, states like NY, NJ and Mass don't have their right to the 2nd ammendment for a while now.....did you just wake up? The constitution is only a piece of paper, it has been drowing for some time now. Do some resarch and you'll find out that Americans don't have many freedoms they use to have. Very soon you all will be working for me.
PLEASE PASS THIS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We need as many tools as we can get to fight the media's ignorant, misleading and misguided propaganda about firearms, brainwashing society basically.
Stop shouting redneck! The Supreme Court was wrong (well, only 5 judges). There is NO right in the constitution to bear arms. The liberal judges didn't protect the constitution? Yeah, actually the other way around. The conservative judges put interpretated something into the constitution that is not there. And it will have deadly affects that they did. Fuck Roberts, Scalia, Alito and the other two judges I don't care enought about to look up now. Oh yeah, and fuck you.
@SimpleStuff31 Funny how - like always - the first part is left out: 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. This makes clear that gun ownership is only a constitutional right in combination with a service in a militia. Everything else IS NOT protected by the constitution and therefor gun control is legitimate.
@Prowsky if it only meant the mititary, than the second part would have been not have been included, it says THE PEOPLE, if it meant the military, it would have said, the right of the MILITARY to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but does it say that? no, and, ill ask again, tell me why we should ban guns?
@SimpleStuff31 First of all it's MILITIA, not MILITARY. Second, I could ask you the same thing, if the second amendment ment just that the people have a right to bear arms, than why put the first part in? The Reason is, the first part further clarifies the meaning of the second part. It clearly say in which case "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". IN A MILITIA! Do we still need militias? Not really, that's why the right to bear arms for fun is also in doubt.
@SimpleStuff31 Why ban guns? Because a number of studies have found that in countries with high rates of gun ownership also have higher rates of gun-related crimes INCLUDING MURDER! What other reason do you need?
And stop the "Obama becomes dictator"-bullshit, that makes you look stupid!
@Prowsky if we ban guns, the bad guys still have them, but the citizens can not protect themselves, they ccan just break in and be like, "does your family own a gun? ha of couse not! thanks obama!" then he steals everything, guns are the answer, not the problem.
@SimpleStuff31 That's always the argument. But it's simply wrong. With REAL gun control the "Bad Guys" will not be able to easily get them. Also the production of guns will drastically slow down, so again less guns available. Countries with tight gun control are proof of that. It's not like in those countries it's common that a familiy is robbed by armed "bad guys" and can not defend themselve. The bad guys don't have guns either.
@SimpleStuff31 Again, what I said earlier: look at other countries with gun control or an outright ban of guns. No black market there, or if, very small.
Guns don't kill people, that's true, but given the possibly to have a gun, a criminal would always choose to get one. If this possibility is taken from him, well... than he doesn't have a gun.
So again: look at other countries at comparision. That they have lower gun related crimes is downright obvious, not much debating on that part.
And stupid answer anyway. If I make comparisons with other countries, I'm being unpatriotic? Yeah right. Well, I live here to, which is precisly WHY I also look to other countries. To learn from them so that MY country can benefit from it.
@Prowsky Its a public forum. When you say stupid stuff in public, you should expect to be called on it. Why do you tell people what they can say and not say? Who the hell do you think you are. I will own guns because I want to. I dont need a reason, nor do I owe you any explanation. If you are that unhappy with the US Constitution, go live in one of your so called "safe" countries.
Gun control plays no part in it. East, more specifically the Baltic Peninsula, has much crime and gun deaths because they're so balkanized. West European countries don't have much conflict because they're culture is similar and they know it. They're also a relatively ethnical BUT they're vulnerable to DEMOCIDE and genocide.
Balkanized? Care to further explain that? "West European countries"? Similar to what? What do they know? Relatively ethnical? Ethnical what?
Summarize: "because of similar cultur west europe has not crimes but they know it and that's why they are vulneral to democide and genocide"? Sorry pal, but I have no idea what you are even talking about. Never heard of any government in westeurope taking avantage of it's gunless population and trying to kill its citizen.
Balkanized: When a country or region splits up in several hostile states against each other because of, most likely, disagreement.
West European countries have very similar cultures within their countries and outside of them in other surrounding countries; therefor there's not much room for [major] disagreement and they're also very ethnical people. So gun control plays a VERY LITTLE role in their crime.
East european countries have many disagreements, leading to crime and...
@Prowsky ...conflict despite the fact their gun laws are just as tight as Western Europe's. "Never heard of any government in westeurope taking avantage of it's gunless population and trying to kill its citizen." It doesn't have to be in Western Europe: Nazis controlling and killing the Jews The regime and genocide in Cambodia Armenian genocide Sudan genocide Tutsi genocide in Rwanda These people unarmed against their killers. Sorry for my horrid typing in the previous comment, I was tired
@Prowsky (continued) ...conflict despite the fact their gun laws are just as tight as Western Europe's. "Never heard of any government in westeurope taking avantage of it's gunless population and trying to kill its citizen." It doesn't have to be in Western Europe: -Nazis controlling and killing the Jews -The regime and genocide in Cambodia -Armenian genocide -Sudan genocide -Tutsi genocide in Rwanda All of these people unarmed and defenseless against their killers.
@Stradivarius12506 I can't comment on the part with east europe, I don't know. I just know that the vast majority of gun related deaths do not occure because of inter-ethnic strife. So the fact that Eastern European countries are "balkanized" (if that is even true) does not explain the gun violence.
You rase an interesting point with the genocide argument. I still disagree: guns would have in no way prevented the holocaust. Any totalitarian country would deprive its targets of weapons before...
"I just know that the vast majority of gun related deaths do not occure because of inter-ethnic strife." Murders = Usually caused by conflict, Wars = usually caused by conflict, Gang violence = usually caused by conflict, genocide = usually caused by disagreement and conflict. Comparing west european countries, countries which within and outside in other surrounding countries have little disagreement, is totally unfair with America having so much diversity.
"It's that this decision means that you can't make gun laws in any state anymore."
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms... shall NOT be infringed." -The Constitution. By showing disagreement on the court decision you are against the Constitution, therefor you are unamerican. Get the hell out of my country and go to the E.U.
@Stradivarius12506 Fuck you! 4 of 5 judges have the same opinion that I have? Are they unamerican? Stupid Fucker, the 5 OTHER judges violated the constitution. I mean AGAIN you just use the last part. YOU JUST HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IF YOU ARE IN A MILITIA. That's it. So I should go to the EU? Why don't you go to Colombia instead?
That's the problem with you fucking conservatives. You actually believe we are the unamerican ones. Well, Obama is our president, get over with it.
Yes, those judges ARE unamerican. Just because they work within the justice system doesn't mean they're not corrupt and power hungry. This proves you are just one of the brainwashed zombies of this generation.
@Prowsky So believing we have a right to defend ourselves is unamerican. I'm pretty sure the founders fought the British with, I don't know, guns. You realize that taking away guns from law abiding citizens won't take them away from criminals who are already breaking the law. Examples
@Fallout3Follower I think I made pretty clear that organizing a militia system (and an armed one) is covered by the constitution. And you always have a right to self defense. That's not the point. Most gun related deaths are not out of self defense however. Participation in law enforcement? What's that all about? You want to hunt criminals yourself? Who are you, Batman? Let the police do its job. For the rest, gun ownership don't match armies, so no use.
@Prowsky Hey, law enforcement should not be too proud as to not accept some help. I'm pretty sure if some place invaded out of the blue, then citizens would protect the states. And you can't be blind as to say that we need guns to protect against undmocratic government.
@Fallout3Follower Again, although one might call me unpatriotic for that one, I can only make a comparison with europe. No guns there and yet their government has not turned on them. So yeah, still not convinced.
Some of that what you say might have some truth in it. It justl doesn't quite match all the disadvantages (and just to make this clear, with disadvantages I mean deaths).
@Prowsky Well first of all, I doubt a nazi gun ban would work like they did in European countries. First Americans love their guns. You couldn't take guns away from Americans like other places. Second, a government can become tyrannical at any time. And I believe that the majority of guns crimes are committed by illegal guns, so taking away from law-abiding citizen is just idiotic.
@Prowsky switzerland mandates that all able bodied men have a fully automatic assault rifle and amunition in their household.. last i checked switzerland was in europe. and you need to watch the news. greece france and northern ireland are cracking down on their people BIG TIME. for protesting. would they feel emboldened to do that if those protestors might bring weapons? i doubt it.
@Prowsky actually the typical american soldier only recieves 6 hours of weapon training. a citizen is on average 45 years old and has had the same training the military recieves anyway. not to mention he knows the territory. 90 million vs 2 million. all an american guerrella force would have to do is wage economic warfare. and be willing to fire ten shots in anger to defeat the entire american army. army cant exist without taxes. but a guerrela force would be richer.by not paying taxes.
"You actually believe we are the unamerican ones."
That's because you ARE! Here's an example: the liberal commies wanted to pass a law; guess what this law does. This laws says that they're should be a balanced number of liberal and conservative radio shows. Guess what amendment that violates; the 1st amendment!
"Obama is our president, get over with it."
Mao-bama (Obama) won't see a 2nd term, I guarantee you that.
@Stradivarius12506 (continued) ...they use violence against them. So this would not have offered protection. And if they still would have guns? Well, the others have an army, so go figure. WE do not live in a totalitarian country. So why do we need protection from our government?
My greatest concern is not gun ownership per se. It's that this decision means that you can't make gun laws in any state anymore.
PS: The word you are looking for is "ethical", not "ethNical"
"So the fact that Eastern European countries are "balkanized" (if that is even true) does not explain the gun violence."
Do you know where the Balkan Peninsula is? East Europe. BALKANization, the BALKAN peninsula in east europe; see the similarities yet? You look it up anywhere and you'll see that the Balkan Peninsula is filled with great conflict and crime.
"WE do not live in a totalitarian country. So why do we need protection from our government?"
*Pacepalm* If we keep on letting our gov't get away with shit then it WILL become totalitarian. If they take our guns, they'll know they can get away with everything else then our gov't will take our freedom and then become totalitarian because we can't fight back. Understand now?
"WE do not live in a totalitarian country. So why do we need protection from our government?"
*Facepalm* If the gov't takes our guns they'll know the can get away with everything else, then they'll take our freedom then become totalitarian become we can't fight back. Understand now?
P.S. for some reason, this section of my comment didn't post, don't know why.
@Prowsky When they have the same socioeconimic/demographics we'll compare with those countries. Until then, let's not try to compare apples and windshield wipers.
@Prowsky Really? If what you say is true, why does the operative clause NOT state.."...the right of the Militia to keep...", or "the right of the peopl ein th Militia to keep..."?
Guess you know more than Dershowitz & Tribe as well.
@Prowsky Look again. Stevens, Breyer, Ginsurg, and Souter dissented on the question of the Constitutionality of DC's handgun bill but all 4 opined on the "individual" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in consensuswith the case's majority.
@Coowallsky How about you look again. Wiki, District of Columbia v. Heller, under dissenting opinions. Stevens says:
"that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only [...] Justice Stevens' dissent was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer." So no, these four judges say there is NO individual right, just if you are in a militia. Sorry. Well, not really.
@Prowsky "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."
"... the right of THE PEOPLE, to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Are you a person? Regardless, I'm going to start up a militia in my town for the purpose of ensuring security. Therefore I'm entitled to have firearms, even by your twisted, convoluted logic.
@Prowsky "Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion, which was joined by the three other dissenters, said: The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right" or an "individual right." Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right."
@Prowsky Unbelievably ignorant: The well regulated militia referred to the civilian militia. The founders were not in favor of a large standing domestic army.
All men had the obligation to participate in the militias so that if their unalienable rights were threatened there would be a response by the people.
Well regulated in in the 1700's meant "functioning well or working well" not regulated by the government.
The threat to our rights can be foreign or domestic.
What needs to be is to impeach the 4 members of the supreme court. It seem they have gone senile and forgot the meaning of bear, keep, shall, not, infringed. Not only that can’t look up the words in a dictionary to find the definitions to those words
It is amazing how probably the most simple statement in a constitution of confusing phrases is the one contested the most. Liberals try to argue that it has something to do with some government militia (which is contradictory, but that is another debate), and that it has nothing to do with you being able to own a firearm. In reality, it says "the right of the people..." Really doesn't take a college English professor to understand what it is trying to say.
@Streetmastaalex Because he is yelling into a youtube video to exaggerate his frustration, 300 million people should have a right stripped? The logic anti-gunners use is really amusing, except for the fact it is over a really serious thing.
@TheAqui1a Agreed man... whatever, if they wanna store fifty AR's in their basement in case the EVUL GUVURMENT attacks, then okay. But if the government does choose to attack, I don't think our little handguns are gonna stop their predator missiles. Just saying.
@Streetmastaalex No no no fascism is massive government which controls everything you do (extreme regulation), takes all that you have (extreme taxation), and is in itself the means of production. The right is small government and the extreme right is no government. So fascism and right wing are OPPOSITES.
Unfortunately many of the "conservatives" that hold power now are not really conservatives. They are neo-cons.
Neocons NEED big government (with lots of power) to work... and they require a lot of money to do so. That what Bush was.
A fascist government is one that will do whatever it needs to in order to impose it's will on it's people, for it's own sake. It can be left or right (often it is made up of both ideologies). Bush and Obama are both fascists. example: Patriot Act
@DaedalEVE I couldn't agree more that many Republicans are the antithesis of conservative.
I've never liked the neocon term, mostly because it seemed to be a meaningless term used as a pejorative for those not opposing the war. Also, I disagree on Patriot Act. I see a great threat in government regulations (fast food, plastic bag, incandescent light bulb... bans) which do impose the government's will on people. However the Patriot Act does not compel law abiding citezens to change behavior.
@DaedalEVE As far as the light bulb bans, I was referring to leftwing props, I'm not certain if any counties have them yet.
On the patriot act, from what I've seen it mainly allows for wiretapping of suspected terrorists. Some call this a free speech issue, but people are not prevented from speaking. I will admit if people speak about plans to bomb a bridge they may be arrested, but we don't have a right to yell fire in a crowded theater.
The Patriot act goes beyond just wire tapping. It, coupled with a couple other laws that were written during the bush administration, set up the American people to be completely raped by the government. All it needs is for the right person to take advantage of it all.
Remember, it's not LEGAL for the fed to assassinate US Citizens they deem as threats. That used to be illegal, and covert... not it's legal and overt. To top it off, now "we the people" are seen as a threat. 2+2
And no, it's not some sort of conspiracy like some would have you think (though there is "conspiring" going on, in the normal sense of the word). It's just people, with possibly good intentions, not thinking things through completely. Plus, people do bad things with power, just just do. That's why no one should have too much. Right now though, Govt and Authority have a too much, and the system is setup to be abused.
The overall issue is that it WILL make law abiding people change their behavior in time, but slowly removing all forms of legal resistance or disobedience.
Look how difficult it is peaceably assemble nowadays. And have you ever tried to petition for redress of grievances... it gets ignored.
When you remove all means of legal resistance, all you have left are the illegal ones. Or something to that affect.
@unit529 damn right their trying to take our guns away after governmen knows everyone is so pissed about 9/11 inside cover up job. just doing what they can to prevent revolts and make another nazi nastion 10X better than hitler. gourge bush already did is first test in iraq and afghanistan, obama is just another midnless puppet that gets a winning popularity contest, then when swore in he swares in to be a slave on people above him. congress is a dogy and pony show act. little what you know.
@bbender1986 Truth. And that shit that they pulled in Tuskon isnt helping the matter either now is it.... Events in the past; along with those in the present have only increased the number of people agenst the 2nd Amendment. We cannot be justly blamed as a nation for the arrogance of a very small group of people.
This is what you get when you vote liberal. Elections have consequences. When the republicans vote on a Supreme Court justice they vote on their qualifications yet the Dems/Libs vote on their ideology. The republicans have better step up their game and stop bringing sling shots to a gun fight. .
this dude is INTENSE god damn, what he is saying is true but he is far to INTENSE. heart attacks are a killer buddy and stress is not good. i hear what your saying but how your saying it is unhealthy and ineffective. a level headed person would have stopped the video at 20 seconds.
yeah Bob you are right our constitutional right would have been taken away had their been one more activist justice, but that would have meant immediate civil war.
Where would America be without guns? The answer is easy: under the boots of tyrants. This is not wild conjecture. It's the reason why totalitarian governments everywhere make disarmament of the citizenry their top priority. And it's the reason why our founders wasted precious little ink on the Bill of Rights before getting to that part about government not abridging the right of the people to bear arms. Thank God for Justice's Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts.........................
We the People have all the power, We allow the state and federal government "limited powers" to govern. The constitution is our protection from them! That is why they're so adamant about reinterpreting it. They think that we are idiots, because we have let them get away with shit for too long, They would like us to believe that it was written in secret code or an ancient script that only they can cipher and understand! When the fact of the matter is, it means exactly what it says! end of story!
Those four people are the enemies of America, hopefully everyone will realize that liberal politicians serve the interest of other countries not ours. message to those four who voted down the 2nd, (THAT INCLUDES SONYA SOTOMAYOR WHO LIED WHEN SHE SAID SHE SUPPORTED THE 2ND AMENDMENT DURING HER HEARING!): if you take away our rights we will take them back from you. You do not give or take rights, only GOD does, and only God can judge us. Don't forget that. Power to the people first.
Amen. 4 folks voted to deny us our rights as guaranteed by the constitution. In other words, screw the constitution, it's a "living" document (in other words-useless), ao let's make whatever laws we want. By the way, love the rant.
Getting rid of that right won't make the world safer. Criminals know illegal gun smugglers and able to acquire guns. Citizens that follow the law and acquire a permit, will have their guns taken away and weaken their defense from criminals, because they acquire them illegally and gov't doesn't have a record. So Citizens can't have guns, but criminals can. Screw that, I say we should be able to protect our homes if they are broken into.
It's funny cause they did take away due process from us. NDAA. Thanks Obama....asshole
MrRyan23xx 2 weeks ago
fuck liberals
JenkyBoom 2 weeks ago
I support the 2nd Amendment, period. Don't give up your guns people because they also help you defend yourself against the tyranny of government no matter who is president.
steveb391 3 weeks ago
@ Jerrypro....taking guns away from people who have demonstrated that they are exactly the type of people who can't be trusted with them (felons) is fundamentally different from taking that right away from law abiding citizens. Furthermore, it is not the role of the Judiciary, but that of the Legislature (as the voice of the people) to decide whether to take that right away. And even then it must be done via constitutional amendment with all its attendant protective constitutional procedures.
jmi52887 2 months ago
4 of the Supreme Court justices have committed treason in my opinion. They should be impeached and removed from the court.
I can understand the 4 SCJ saying the cities county and states have a right to keep felons from having a gun because they lost certain right when convicted and mentally dangerous person if a court judge that person to so.
samten10a 3 months ago
But laws like DC and Chicago are so far past that, the laws are not even laughable.
Most people have to wonder what kind of a dictionary that has definition that so corrupted the meaning of the words; bare, keep, shall, not, infringe, upon. That allowed the 4 SCJ was using it to be able to make an imbecile judgment.
samten10a 3 months ago
Let's see if I got this right. The Bill of Rights which are the first ten Ammendments to our Constitution are rights that are inalienable, given to us by our Creator and not from our government. They are rights which our government has no power or authority to take away. Well if that is true it seems that the government has no right to deprive felons of their Second Ammendment right to bear arms.
JERRYPRO121 4 months ago
@JERRYPRO121 They didn't let felons go free back then so they didn't have to worry about that. But now we got judges who actually have the gaul to be sympathetic to maniacs, muderers, and maniacs. Like the midget rapist in Iowa who got special treatment because the judge was afraid he'd be mistreated and sexually abused. I shit you not, I was workin up there and heard it on the radio.
nktank84 3 months ago
We liberals are smart enough to not want guns in the hands of fools like this spaz! We take care of clowns like this the old fashioned way, a good beat down and he'll have a whole new attitude
chucknchar 4 months ago
@chucknchar Switzerland has the least crime rate in the world...I WONDER WHY/Go look it up idiot
urbman29 4 months ago
@urbman29 I did look it up and its says,
"Fools like urman29 don't live there"
chucknchar 4 months ago
@chucknchar ur right,i should be living there.Not taking my arms away.
urbman29 4 months ago
two party dictatorship led by a one party jewish agenda, world slavery,
germanysjim 5 months ago
Holy shit......someone needs some decaf.....
NinjaRider777R 5 months ago in playlist ll AMENDMENT
Check out the Military Commission Act and Patriot Act. They took away the 4th Amendment protecting us from illegal search and seizures.
filoIII 6 months ago
@filoIII Wrong. The Anti-Espionage and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1994 (Clinton administration) created ALL the 4th amendment repeals the government now enjoys. The Patriot Act (Bush Administration) simply rounded up all the scattered regulations of the Clinton-era's act and consolidated them for legal ease. Furthermore, the 4th amendment only restricts the governments and police agencies and those working for them. If I sneak in your house and find something, you cant claim the 4th Am.
robbie8600 5 months ago
What is so bad about the Patriot Act? "Generally, the worst part of this so-called anti-terrorism bill is the increased ability of the federal government to commit surveillance on all of us without proper search warrants."--Ron Paul. He was referring to Section 213 (Authority for Delaying Notice of the Execution of a Warrant), also known as the "sneak-and-peak" provision, which effectively allows police to avoid giving prior warning when searches of personal property are conducted. Thx, tho
filoIII 5 months ago
@robbie8600 The cops will search your car or whatever, if you say yes or no......I have a relative that is a cop....You tell them to stay out of your car, they are going to search it any way......The patriot act is BS, go and get on a plane, the TSA will strip search your ass, all started with 911 and the patriot act....
avionicswirenut 5 months ago
what good are guns anyways if they wanted to they could wipe 90% of us out with a EMP we are powerless dont think they wouldnt turn the military on us i bet if we did a really big protest for something they dont want like for weed we would be face first on the ground but in truth they cant take our bornright every one has them its freewill but getting shot at isn't a good way of keeping freewill (i only have my life if im not hurting someone leave me be to do as i see fit like smokeing weed)
DarkStatic69 6 months ago
@DarkStatic69 I couldn't tell by your post if you knew this or not but guns do not run on electricity. Except for metal storm weapons. So EMPs wouldn't matter
giftedkidrules 3 months ago
The four justices who voted against the 2nd. Amendment are all democrats. They, like most democrats hate Freedom, Rights and Liberty.
sidewindermack 6 months ago
Was that a positive rant or a negative rant? Do you like being able to own firearms or not?
ManaOkamiMeiun 6 months ago
i remember that day and when i told my co-workers there rereaction was a mindless blank stare and then to go back to talking about guys playing with a ball
ColtBinder 6 months ago
There are no liberals, there are no democrats and no republicans - it is all a Great Party deceivingly divided in two, in order to give the Americans the ILLUSION of choice when they vote... It's like Pepsi and Cola - wake the fuck up, America!
tuzmor 6 months ago
@tuzmor You are correct. I believe we live in a two party dictatorship. These politicians try to make us believe their in two different parties but behind closed doors their patting eachother on the back and laughing.
nerblebun 5 months ago
The message is good, but this guy is annoying.
davejsmith 6 months ago
Remember this. SCOTUS judges are appointed "for life" or until voluntary retirement. *AHEM*
cmblake6 7 months ago 2
I'll bet it was Breyer, Ginsburg, Sotomayor and Stevens. Fucking liberals. They probably want to take away our rights to bear arms because they know that so many citizens want to shoot their heads off.
tether37 7 months ago
He is 100% correct. When the 2nd Amendment is gone so Goes Our Remaining Rights. And if you think our governement won't inforce their will on us. Do some research on Waco Tx. Our Government Burned them out and then shot women and childer as the tried to excape the buring buildings. You need to watch the film. It's all there, and then they Bold Fase Lied to Congress, We NEVER fired a single round at the complex. The film shows them fireing at the build, running tanks through the building .
tfrank888 7 months ago
136 dislikes. That means 136 people can choke on a cock without gagging and simultaneously vote for obama while also jerking off Mr. Janet Napalitano's massive hard dick while I zoom in for a close-up and see that they are also taking a mammoth TSA stuffing up their ass while begging for more safety while driving their fucking TOYOTA PRIUS!!!
ThePresticle1 7 months ago
i agree with you, but man, you sound like a jackass. chillax....
gaozhi2007 7 months ago
It's time to lock and load against anti-American liberals.
timd941 7 months ago
@timd941 I think its a balance, the liberals voted against gun rights and the conservatives voted against everything else... human rights, abortion rights etc......
davejsmith 6 months ago
take away the 2nd amendment then they will take away the rest of our rights. the govt first takes away our guns then they will take away freedom
BEARARMZ 7 months ago
LOVE THIS GUY!!
I need to make a video like this guy.
Thumbs up if you agree the people who disliked this video are liberal.
AwsomiSoftChannel 7 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The 2nd amendment has nothing to do with "guns for hunting". It's all about protecting us from the very people who want to disarm us. If and when they come for our guns, it is our right and duty to kill them.
foxrat123 8 months ago
chill
kalukskate2 8 months ago
i love guns.
but i find it ironic that he wears a DARE T-shirt while acting like he's on cocaine
HSTfan1992 9 months ago
Let them try and take our guns they'll have a full scale revolution on their hands
JohnnyWeedSeed420 9 months ago
Im with ya brother!! Glad to see another thinking American out there. Stay strong brother and be willing to fight to the end. It is a very scary world now. The scary thing is that people don't seem to care, and some are in fact supporting our government in their effort take away our freedoms and allowing them to become tyrannical dictators.
sonia0865 9 months ago
i think that people want them to try and take away our rights so they can take em back by force so we can say o the u.n. this is what will happen if you try and take away our rights you end up dead. just a theory idk if it's true hope not.
nitewolf89 9 months ago
@KKKSuperFan most paranoid liberals are afraid of gun owners.
Resoses 9 months ago
Cocaine is a helluva drug...
Research1nterrupted 9 months ago 2
@Research1nterrupted un-original, and no longer funny.
joshkkv 8 months ago
WTF is this?????
4sylum1nmate 9 months ago
Intense but very true.
boanerges144 10 months ago
@KKKSuperFan
Go stab yourself in the throat with a knife asshole, since you hate guns. As was said in the video, when one right can be taken away, they all can. How much longer before the 1st goes away?
"Well, it's vital in a time of war that no one criticizes the government, so in the interest of 'national security', we have 'contracted' with the press to better explain our position."
Start digging your own grave.
Darkrunner1975 10 months ago
scary shit my friends scary shit
rockinandout 11 months ago
@KKKSuperFan Hitler and Mao believed in gun banning and it worked. And what happened? 20+millions got tortured and murdered. The victims were totally defenseless. If you want to be that victim, I'm fine with it. And banning guns WILL NOT make society better off. Sure, there are shootings here and there. Those victims are the prices we have to pay for our freedom. The Constitution is the rule of law. If you think it's okay to take away the 2nd Amend, then someone can also take away your 1st Amend
ustfu 11 months ago
@KKKSuperFan most people who dont own guns get mugged becuase they are not paranoid
1bigtarget 11 months ago
@KKKSuperFan your a troll and im sure you couldnt go buy a gun legally
kennethschwartz7 11 months ago
So why hasn't anyone sued New York State? New York City? They still have laws saying that in upstate new york you cannot have a handgun in your HOME without permission from the government... In New York City, the right to own guns is DENIED!!!
SOMEONE SUE NEW YORK FOR GOODNESS SAKE!!!
Jiffypistol 11 months ago
Say it true!!!
Jiffypistol 11 months ago
@KKKSuperFan gun bans dont do shit, if a criminal wants a gun, he is gonna get one legally or not, criminals love gun laws, it takes guns away from people so then those innocent people cant defend themselves, if someone broke into your house, would you rather have a phone in your hand calling 911 and waiting 10 minutes minimum for them to show up, or a pistol and defending yourself, cops will arrive eventually, and take a picture of your dead body, when guns are outlawed, only outlaws have guns
zeroboarder95 1 year ago
@zeroboarder95 criminals would never get a registered legal gun anyway they always buy illegal so its harder to trace back to them
infernoofflames 1 year ago
Your right!
kornfanatic2008 1 year ago
@KKKSuperFan lol... let's get rid of our military while we're at it too! LOL (idiot)
baezalejandro 1 year ago
@KKKSuperFan So we can be defenseless against gangs and cartels? No thanks.
bossoholic 1 year ago
slow clap...
akompsupport 1 year ago
@KKKSuperFan Are you kidding me? A racist douchebag that wants guns BANNED? You have got to be shitting me.
By the way i like the nice manly mix of faggotkluxklan videos and kitty cat videos on your channel, it doesnt make you look like a weak ass little faggot in any way, shape or form trust me.
tronclay 1 year ago
you only have rights you are willing to die for.
leorjh123 1 year ago
@KKKSuperFan no its not
roark02 1 year ago
These liberals have
The liberals have brought Arizona a civil war, once again defending the criminals and illegals, creating a meltdown for good, loyal, law-abiding citizens. Your destruction of this country may never be remedied, and we may never recover. I pray to God you stop, and I hope the people in this great country realize your agenda is not for the betterment of mankind, but for the betterment of your politics
scrambiano 1 year ago
Fucking idiots... Knob Creek should be bombed with all those dumbasses and assholes. 2nd Amendment sucks!!!
Sofista69 1 year ago
@Sofista69 Dude..... Your mother is at Knob Creek bro.
tronclay 1 year ago
You even have it wrong.Obama will not fill the positions on the court with judge but polictal hacks. Kagan is not and was not and can never be a judge. Every real judge out there that have served decades on the bench are being passed over for back room clerks. Hey you federal judges with years of service, Obama has said, SCREW YOU!
tock101 1 year ago
I'd like to see them try and take away the 2nd amendment. That would be really funny.
YOWHATTHEHELLUP71 1 year ago
Fact as soon as Australia banned guns, rape went up by 31%, assaults went up by 15% and Burglary went up by 25% between 2001 and 2007
Depravedmaniac666 1 year ago
ROCK THE FUCK ON BROTHER!
RightWingCon81 1 year ago
i got a month and a half. after that... just try to take my defense away from me. ill show you what defense meant to the founding fathers.
pittbd69 1 year ago
Comment removed
followthemoney100 1 year ago
129 librals would like to suck a cock instead of defending themselves from their own stupidity
DEFCONeredd 1 year ago
It's way too late, states like NY, NJ and Mass don't have their right to the 2nd ammendment for a while now.....did you just wake up? The constitution is only a piece of paper, it has been drowing for some time now. Do some resarch and you'll find out that Americans don't have many freedoms they use to have. Very soon you all will be working for me.
Redcaster916 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Liberalism is a Severe Mental Disorder and Anti-American and Anti-Constitution
nytmstr 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Cars kill 64 TIMES MORE THEN GUNS!!!!
>>>> Google "WISQARS Injury Mortality Reports"
PLEASE PASS THIS ON!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We need as many tools as we can get to fight the media's ignorant, misleading and misguided propaganda about firearms, brainwashing society basically.
glenbjack 1 year ago
Stop shouting redneck! The Supreme Court was wrong (well, only 5 judges). There is NO right in the constitution to bear arms. The liberal judges didn't protect the constitution? Yeah, actually the other way around. The conservative judges put interpretated something into the constitution that is not there. And it will have deadly affects that they did. Fuck Roberts, Scalia, Alito and the other two judges I don't care enought about to look up now. Oh yeah, and fuck you.
Prowsky 1 year ago
@Prowsky the right of the PEOPLE to keep and bear arms shall NOT be infringed. Give me one reason to ban guns.
SimpleStuff31 1 year ago
@SimpleStuff31 Funny how - like always - the first part is left out: 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. This makes clear that gun ownership is only a constitutional right in combination with a service in a militia. Everything else IS NOT protected by the constitution and therefor gun control is legitimate.
Prowsky 1 year ago
@Prowsky if it only meant the mititary, than the second part would have been not have been included, it says THE PEOPLE, if it meant the military, it would have said, the right of the MILITARY to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, but does it say that? no, and, ill ask again, tell me why we should ban guns?
SimpleStuff31 1 year ago
@SimpleStuff31 First of all it's MILITIA, not MILITARY. Second, I could ask you the same thing, if the second amendment ment just that the people have a right to bear arms, than why put the first part in? The Reason is, the first part further clarifies the meaning of the second part. It clearly say in which case "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". IN A MILITIA! Do we still need militias? Not really, that's why the right to bear arms for fun is also in doubt.
Prowsky 1 year ago
@Prowsky and again i ask you, why ban guns?! answer thesimple question,
and the right of the people to keep and bear arms is needed so that we dont have obama become a dictator!
SimpleStuff31 1 year ago
@SimpleStuff31 Why ban guns? Because a number of studies have found that in countries with high rates of gun ownership also have higher rates of gun-related crimes INCLUDING MURDER! What other reason do you need?
And stop the "Obama becomes dictator"-bullshit, that makes you look stupid!
Prowsky 1 year ago
@Prowsky if we ban guns, the bad guys still have them, but the citizens can not protect themselves, they ccan just break in and be like, "does your family own a gun? ha of couse not! thanks obama!" then he steals everything, guns are the answer, not the problem.
SimpleStuff31 1 year ago
@SimpleStuff31 That's always the argument. But it's simply wrong. With REAL gun control the "Bad Guys" will not be able to easily get them. Also the production of guns will drastically slow down, so again less guns available. Countries with tight gun control are proof of that. It's not like in those countries it's common that a familiy is robbed by armed "bad guys" and can not defend themselve. The bad guys don't have guns either.
PS: What did I tell you about the Obama-thing?
Prowsky 1 year ago
@Prowsky ever heard of the black market? saying guns kill people is like saying pencils mispell words, why dont we outlaw pencils?
SimpleStuff31 1 year ago
@SimpleStuff31 Again, what I said earlier: look at other countries with gun control or an outright ban of guns. No black market there, or if, very small.
Guns don't kill people, that's true, but given the possibly to have a gun, a criminal would always choose to get one. If this possibility is taken from him, well... than he doesn't have a gun.
So again: look at other countries at comparision. That they have lower gun related crimes is downright obvious, not much debating on that part.
Prowsky 1 year ago
@Prowsky Then go live there. I dont want to look at other countries. I live here.
rb2112002 1 year ago
@rb2112002 Who is talking to you?
And stupid answer anyway. If I make comparisons with other countries, I'm being unpatriotic? Yeah right. Well, I live here to, which is precisly WHY I also look to other countries. To learn from them so that MY country can benefit from it.
Prowsky 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Prowsky Its a public forum. When you say stupid stuff in public, you should expect to be called on it. Why do you tell people what they can say and not say? Who the hell do you think you are. I will own guns because I want to. I dont need a reason, nor do I owe you any explanation. If you are that unhappy with the US Constitution, go live in one of your so called "safe" countries.
rb2112002 1 year ago
@Prowsky
Gun control plays no part in it. East, more specifically the Baltic Peninsula, has much crime and gun deaths because they're so balkanized. West European countries don't have much conflict because they're culture is similar and they know it. They're also a relatively ethnical BUT they're vulnerable to DEMOCIDE and genocide.
Stradivarius12506 1 year ago
@Stradivarius12506 What?
Balkanized? Care to further explain that? "West European countries"? Similar to what? What do they know? Relatively ethnical? Ethnical what?
Summarize: "because of similar cultur west europe has not crimes but they know it and that's why they are vulneral to democide and genocide"? Sorry pal, but I have no idea what you are even talking about. Never heard of any government in westeurope taking avantage of it's gunless population and trying to kill its citizen.
Prowsky 1 year ago
@Prowsky
Balkanized: When a country or region splits up in several hostile states against each other because of, most likely, disagreement.
West European countries have very similar cultures within their countries and outside of them in other surrounding countries; therefor there's not much room for [major] disagreement and they're also very ethnical people. So gun control plays a VERY LITTLE role in their crime.
East european countries have many disagreements, leading to crime and...
Stradivarius12506 1 year ago
Stradivarius12506 1 year ago
Stradivarius12506 1 year ago
@Stradivarius12506 I can't comment on the part with east europe, I don't know. I just know that the vast majority of gun related deaths do not occure because of inter-ethnic strife. So the fact that Eastern European countries are "balkanized" (if that is even true) does not explain the gun violence.
You rase an interesting point with the genocide argument. I still disagree: guns would have in no way prevented the holocaust. Any totalitarian country would deprive its targets of weapons before...
Prowsky 1 year ago
@Prowsky
"I just know that the vast majority of gun related deaths do not occure because of inter-ethnic strife." Murders = Usually caused by conflict, Wars = usually caused by conflict, Gang violence = usually caused by conflict, genocide = usually caused by disagreement and conflict. Comparing west european countries, countries which within and outside in other surrounding countries have little disagreement, is totally unfair with America having so much diversity.
Stradivarius12506 1 year ago
@Prowsky
(continued)
"It's that this decision means that you can't make gun laws in any state anymore."
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms... shall NOT be infringed." -The Constitution. By showing disagreement on the court decision you are against the Constitution, therefor you are unamerican. Get the hell out of my country and go to the E.U.
Stradivarius12506 1 year ago
@Stradivarius12506 Fuck you! 4 of 5 judges have the same opinion that I have? Are they unamerican? Stupid Fucker, the 5 OTHER judges violated the constitution. I mean AGAIN you just use the last part. YOU JUST HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IF YOU ARE IN A MILITIA. That's it. So I should go to the EU? Why don't you go to Colombia instead?
That's the problem with you fucking conservatives. You actually believe we are the unamerican ones. Well, Obama is our president, get over with it.
Prowsky 1 year ago
@Prowsky
What's wrong? Did I strike a nerve?
Yes, those judges ARE unamerican. Just because they work within the justice system doesn't mean they're not corrupt and power hungry. This proves you are just one of the brainwashed zombies of this generation.
Stradivarius12506 1 year ago
@Prowsky So believing we have a right to defend ourselves is unamerican. I'm pretty sure the founders fought the British with, I don't know, guns. You realize that taking away guns from law abiding citizens won't take them away from criminals who are already breaking the law. Examples
deterring undemocratic government;
repelling invasion
suppressing insurrection;
facilitating a natural right of self-defense;
participating in law enforcement;
enabling the people to organize a militia system
Fallout3Follower 1 year ago
@Fallout3Follower I think I made pretty clear that organizing a militia system (and an armed one) is covered by the constitution. And you always have a right to self defense. That's not the point. Most gun related deaths are not out of self defense however. Participation in law enforcement? What's that all about? You want to hunt criminals yourself? Who are you, Batman? Let the police do its job. For the rest, gun ownership don't match armies, so no use.
Prowsky 1 year ago
@Prowsky Hey, law enforcement should not be too proud as to not accept some help. I'm pretty sure if some place invaded out of the blue, then citizens would protect the states. And you can't be blind as to say that we need guns to protect against undmocratic government.
Fallout3Follower 1 year ago
@Fallout3Follower *so blind as to say that we Don't need guns to protect against tyrannical government, because we DO need guns for that.
Fallout3Follower 1 year ago
@Fallout3Follower Again, although one might call me unpatriotic for that one, I can only make a comparison with europe. No guns there and yet their government has not turned on them. So yeah, still not convinced.
Some of that what you say might have some truth in it. It justl doesn't quite match all the disadvantages (and just to make this clear, with disadvantages I mean deaths).
Prowsky 1 year ago
@Prowsky Well first of all, I doubt a nazi gun ban would work like they did in European countries. First Americans love their guns. You couldn't take guns away from Americans like other places. Second, a government can become tyrannical at any time. And I believe that the majority of guns crimes are committed by illegal guns, so taking away from law-abiding citizen is just idiotic.
Fallout3Follower 1 year ago
@Prowsky apparently you have never heard of Nazi Germany, ya the government turned on their citizens.
spyderc85 1 year ago
@Prowsky switzerland mandates that all able bodied men have a fully automatic assault rifle and amunition in their household.. last i checked switzerland was in europe. and you need to watch the news. greece france and northern ireland are cracking down on their people BIG TIME. for protesting. would they feel emboldened to do that if those protestors might bring weapons? i doubt it.
markbotv3 1 year ago
@Prowsky actually the typical american soldier only recieves 6 hours of weapon training. a citizen is on average 45 years old and has had the same training the military recieves anyway. not to mention he knows the territory. 90 million vs 2 million. all an american guerrella force would have to do is wage economic warfare. and be willing to fire ten shots in anger to defeat the entire american army. army cant exist without taxes. but a guerrela force would be richer.by not paying taxes.
markbotv3 1 year ago
@Prowsky
"You actually believe we are the unamerican ones."
That's because you ARE! Here's an example: the liberal commies wanted to pass a law; guess what this law does. This laws says that they're should be a balanced number of liberal and conservative radio shows. Guess what amendment that violates; the 1st amendment!
"Obama is our president, get over with it."
Mao-bama (Obama) won't see a 2nd term, I guarantee you that.
Stradivarius12506 1 year ago
@Stradivarius12506 (continued) ...they use violence against them. So this would not have offered protection. And if they still would have guns? Well, the others have an army, so go figure. WE do not live in a totalitarian country. So why do we need protection from our government?
My greatest concern is not gun ownership per se. It's that this decision means that you can't make gun laws in any state anymore.
PS: The word you are looking for is "ethical", not "ethNical"
Prowsky 1 year ago
@Prowsky
(continued)
"So the fact that Eastern European countries are "balkanized" (if that is even true) does not explain the gun violence."
Do you know where the Balkan Peninsula is? East Europe. BALKANization, the BALKAN peninsula in east europe; see the similarities yet? You look it up anywhere and you'll see that the Balkan Peninsula is filled with great conflict and crime.
Stradivarius12506 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Prowsky
(continued)
"WE do not live in a totalitarian country. So why do we need protection from our government?"
*Pacepalm* If we keep on letting our gov't get away with shit then it WILL become totalitarian. If they take our guns, they'll know they can get away with everything else then our gov't will take our freedom and then become totalitarian because we can't fight back. Understand now?
Stradivarius12506 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Prowsky
"WE do not live in a totalitarian country. So why do we need protection from our government?"
*Facepalm* If the gov't takes our guns they'll know the can get away with everything else, then they'll take our freedom then become totalitarian become we can't fight back. Understand now?
P.S. for some reason, this section of my comment didn't post, don't know why.
Stradivarius12506 1 year ago
@Prowsky
"YOU JUST HAVE A RIGHT TO BEAR ARMS IF YOU ARE IN A MILITIA."
O rly? "No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Do you see anything about the militia in there?
Stradivarius12506 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@Stradivarius12506
"No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms." Where is that even from?
Anyway, I'm done with you.
Prowsky 1 year ago
@Prowsky When they have the same socioeconimic/demographics we'll compare with those countries. Until then, let's not try to compare apples and windshield wipers.
Coowallsky 1 year ago
@SimpleStuff31 Well said. Laws only apply to honest people.
rb2112002 1 year ago
@Prowsky Wrong. The first clause acknowledges the obvious and the second clause guarantees it can be allowed to exist.
Coowallsky 1 year ago
@Prowsky Really? If what you say is true, why does the operative clause NOT state.."...the right of the Militia to keep...", or "the right of the peopl ein th Militia to keep..."?
Guess you know more than Dershowitz & Tribe as well.
Coowallsky 1 year ago
@Prowsky Wrong you are. The "individual" right to keep and bear arms was UNANIMOUSLY affirmed in Heller. Yup, even the liberal justices affirmed it.
Coowallsky 1 year ago
@Coowallsky
Look at wiki. Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter dissented.
Prowsky 1 year ago
@Prowsky Look again. Stevens, Breyer, Ginsurg, and Souter dissented on the question of the Constitutionality of DC's handgun bill but all 4 opined on the "individual" interpretation of the 2nd Amendment in consensuswith the case's majority.
Coowallsky 1 year ago
@Coowallsky How about you look again. Wiki, District of Columbia v. Heller, under dissenting opinions. Stevens says:
"that the "militia" preamble and exact phrase "to keep and bear arms" demands the conclusion that the Second Amendment touches on state militia service only [...] Justice Stevens' dissent was joined by Justices David Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Stephen Breyer." So no, these four judges say there is NO individual right, just if you are in a militia. Sorry. Well, not really.
Prowsky 1 year ago
@Prowsky "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."
"... the right of THE PEOPLE, to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Are you a person? Regardless, I'm going to start up a militia in my town for the purpose of ensuring security. Therefore I'm entitled to have firearms, even by your twisted, convoluted logic.
something01992 1 year ago
@Prowsky "Justice Stevens' dissenting opinion, which was joined by the three other dissenters, said: The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a "collective right" or an "individual right." Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right."
Yup, individual.
Coowallsky 11 months ago
@Prowsky Unbelievably ignorant: The well regulated militia referred to the civilian militia. The founders were not in favor of a large standing domestic army.
All men had the obligation to participate in the militias so that if their unalienable rights were threatened there would be a response by the people.
Well regulated in in the 1700's meant "functioning well or working well" not regulated by the government.
The threat to our rights can be foreign or domestic.
followthemoney100 1 year ago
Damn straight
Mr2ndAmendment 1 year ago
Impressive rant. Passionate, and accurate.
PingOnThis 1 year ago
What needs to be is to impeach the 4 members of the supreme court. It seem they have gone senile and forgot the meaning of bear, keep, shall, not, infringed. Not only that can’t look up the words in a dictionary to find the definitions to those words
samten10a 1 year ago
It is amazing how probably the most simple statement in a constitution of confusing phrases is the one contested the most. Liberals try to argue that it has something to do with some government militia (which is contradictory, but that is another debate), and that it has nothing to do with you being able to own a firearm. In reality, it says "the right of the people..." Really doesn't take a college English professor to understand what it is trying to say.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
Dudes like THIS are why the Second Amendment should be repealed
Streetmastaalex 1 year ago
@Streetmastaalex Because he is yelling into a youtube video to exaggerate his frustration, 300 million people should have a right stripped? The logic anti-gunners use is really amusing, except for the fact it is over a really serious thing.
patsfanczar 1 year ago
@Streetmastaalex No, it's people like this that speak the truth and protect are right that protects all others.
Fallout3Follower 1 year ago
@Streetmastaalex Please elaborate on this statement.
DesertChipmunkAZ 1 year ago
@Streetmastaalex Keep your fascism off my streets.
netster007z 1 year ago
@netster007z interesting, fascism a RIGHT WING concept
Streetmastaalex 1 year ago
@Streetmastaalex It's not worth your effort trying to educate these idiots. If they want to play cowboys, let them.
TheAqui1a 1 year ago
@TheAqui1a Agreed man... whatever, if they wanna store fifty AR's in their basement in case the EVUL GUVURMENT attacks, then okay. But if the government does choose to attack, I don't think our little handguns are gonna stop their predator missiles. Just saying.
Streetmastaalex 1 year ago
@Streetmastaalex Indeed lol
TheAqui1a 1 year ago
@Streetmastaalex No no no fascism is massive government which controls everything you do (extreme regulation), takes all that you have (extreme taxation), and is in itself the means of production. The right is small government and the extreme right is no government. So fascism and right wing are OPPOSITES.
netster007z 1 year ago
@netster007z
Unfortunately many of the "conservatives" that hold power now are not really conservatives. They are neo-cons.
Neocons NEED big government (with lots of power) to work... and they require a lot of money to do so. That what Bush was.
A fascist government is one that will do whatever it needs to in order to impose it's will on it's people, for it's own sake. It can be left or right (often it is made up of both ideologies). Bush and Obama are both fascists. example: Patriot Act
DaedalEVE 1 year ago
@DaedalEVE I couldn't agree more that many Republicans are the antithesis of conservative.
I've never liked the neocon term, mostly because it seemed to be a meaningless term used as a pejorative for those not opposing the war. Also, I disagree on Patriot Act. I see a great threat in government regulations (fast food, plastic bag, incandescent light bulb... bans) which do impose the government's will on people. However the Patriot Act does not compel law abiding citezens to change behavior.
netster007z 1 year ago
@netster007z
I don't like neocon either.. it sounds too made up (and like it comes from the mouth of someone who wears a tin foil hat).
Incandescent light bans? Serious? Never heard about that before.
And not yet it doesn't. The Patriot Act gives government the ability to ignore all your rights, simply by calling you a terrorist.
That would be so easy to do. Look at the DHS report on "right wing extremism" (it says returning vets are possible terrorists, even gun owners).
DaedalEVE 1 year ago
@DaedalEVE As far as the light bulb bans, I was referring to leftwing props, I'm not certain if any counties have them yet.
On the patriot act, from what I've seen it mainly allows for wiretapping of suspected terrorists. Some call this a free speech issue, but people are not prevented from speaking. I will admit if people speak about plans to bomb a bridge they may be arrested, but we don't have a right to yell fire in a crowded theater.
And I'll agree that DHS report was total BS.
netster007z 1 year ago
@netster007z
The Patriot act goes beyond just wire tapping. It, coupled with a couple other laws that were written during the bush administration, set up the American people to be completely raped by the government. All it needs is for the right person to take advantage of it all.
Remember, it's not LEGAL for the fed to assassinate US Citizens they deem as threats. That used to be illegal, and covert... not it's legal and overt. To top it off, now "we the people" are seen as a threat. 2+2
DaedalEVE 1 year ago
@DaedalEVE
Make that "it's NOW legal for the fed to assassinate..."
DaedalEVE 1 year ago
@netster007z
And no, it's not some sort of conspiracy like some would have you think (though there is "conspiring" going on, in the normal sense of the word). It's just people, with possibly good intentions, not thinking things through completely. Plus, people do bad things with power, just just do. That's why no one should have too much. Right now though, Govt and Authority have a too much, and the system is setup to be abused.
DaedalEVE 1 year ago
@netster007z
The overall issue is that it WILL make law abiding people change their behavior in time, but slowly removing all forms of legal resistance or disobedience.
Look how difficult it is peaceably assemble nowadays. And have you ever tried to petition for redress of grievances... it gets ignored.
When you remove all means of legal resistance, all you have left are the illegal ones. Or something to that affect.
DaedalEVE 1 year ago
GREAT STUFF! 5*****
TheFreedomWatch 1 year ago
The constitution also states that WE WILL NOT BE DEPRIVED OF LIFE LIBERTY OR PROPERTY!!
MstrMnd420 1 year ago
I LOVE you man!!!!!
ilovenh1 1 year ago
Damn strait! RAGE MAKES YOU MAKE SENSE. THIS IS TRUTH! DAMN YOU LIBIES! YE AINT GONNA TAKE MA SHOOTER UNLESS YE PRY IT FROM MY COLD DEAD FINGERS!
unit529 1 year ago 11
This has been flagged as spam show
@unit529
You will obey the new world order. You will give up your liberty.
Freedom is gone, never to return. The Constitution will be overturned.
United Nation's troops will transport you to a detention center, where you will be taught the virtues of Communism.
Surrender your firearms.
You will obey the new world order, or you will be shot.
nycullaSUCKS 1 year ago
@unit529 damn right their trying to take our guns away after governmen knows everyone is so pissed about 9/11 inside cover up job. just doing what they can to prevent revolts and make another nazi nastion 10X better than hitler. gourge bush already did is first test in iraq and afghanistan, obama is just another midnless puppet that gets a winning popularity contest, then when swore in he swares in to be a slave on people above him. congress is a dogy and pony show act. little what you know.
bbender1986 1 year ago
@bbender1986 Truth. And that shit that they pulled in Tuskon isnt helping the matter either now is it.... Events in the past; along with those in the present have only increased the number of people agenst the 2nd Amendment. We cannot be justly blamed as a nation for the arrogance of a very small group of people.
unit529 1 year ago
This is what you get when you vote liberal. Elections have consequences. When the republicans vote on a Supreme Court justice they vote on their qualifications yet the Dems/Libs vote on their ideology. The republicans have better step up their game and stop bringing sling shots to a gun fight. .
CONUTTO 1 year ago
i dont kno who he is... but hes pissed. we better listen to him
nitromehane189 1 year ago 13
this dude is INTENSE god damn, what he is saying is true but he is far to INTENSE. heart attacks are a killer buddy and stress is not good. i hear what your saying but how your saying it is unhealthy and ineffective. a level headed person would have stopped the video at 20 seconds.
1goldinga 1 year ago 2
"wake up...do the freakin' math...and wake up!!!!! I love it.
flipwiggins 1 year ago
Amen Bob.
cuprumcaput 1 year ago
yeah Bob you are right our constitutional right would have been taken away had their been one more activist justice, but that would have meant immediate civil war.
boxingboycow 1 year ago
Where would America be without guns? The answer is easy: under the boots of tyrants. This is not wild conjecture. It's the reason why totalitarian governments everywhere make disarmament of the citizenry their top priority. And it's the reason why our founders wasted precious little ink on the Bill of Rights before getting to that part about government not abridging the right of the people to bear arms. Thank God for Justice's Scalia, Thomas, Alito, Roberts.........................
kcufmalsi 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
We the People have all the power, We allow the state and federal government "limited powers" to govern. The constitution is our protection from them! That is why they're so adamant about reinterpreting it. They think that we are idiots, because we have let them get away with shit for too long, They would like us to believe that it was written in secret code or an ancient script that only they can cipher and understand! When the fact of the matter is, it means exactly what it says! end of story!
Mrcharliebobo 1 year ago
Those four people are the enemies of America, hopefully everyone will realize that liberal politicians serve the interest of other countries not ours. message to those four who voted down the 2nd, (THAT INCLUDES SONYA SOTOMAYOR WHO LIED WHEN SHE SAID SHE SUPPORTED THE 2ND AMENDMENT DURING HER HEARING!): if you take away our rights we will take them back from you. You do not give or take rights, only GOD does, and only God can judge us. Don't forget that. Power to the people first.
weseyedwalk 1 year ago 2
Comment removed
weseyedwalk 1 year ago
strike down the 2nd Amendment and there will be violent revolution.
TACMAN518 1 year ago
Amen. 4 folks voted to deny us our rights as guaranteed by the constitution. In other words, screw the constitution, it's a "living" document (in other words-useless), ao let's make whatever laws we want. By the way, love the rant.
hallufus 1 year ago 2
exactly.....
dualberettas 1 year ago
constitution what is that ? they have taken away almost all ur rights already
snooch1975 1 year ago
Getting rid of that right won't make the world safer. Criminals know illegal gun smugglers and able to acquire guns. Citizens that follow the law and acquire a permit, will have their guns taken away and weaken their defense from criminals, because they acquire them illegally and gov't doesn't have a record. So Citizens can't have guns, but criminals can. Screw that, I say we should be able to protect our homes if they are broken into.
SkyX19 1 year ago
So who said they didnt like this video?
It looks like 126 people have.
that is not good.
freereloader1010 1 year ago