I'll just let Penn and Teller explain what I am always explaining about the 2nd. They spell it out better! https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
Do you think that when the Document was written they took into account the development of the muskets these shooters use today in these massacres ...
I don't think that made a damn difference. In fact, they probably meant that the people should be just as armed as the government...but I cannot say I fully advocate that. I feel that there are enough armed people to create a pretty big problem if there was ever a tyrannical government though, and I do not see that as a bad thing.
I think it makes all the difference. When that document was written, the most powerful weapon known to man was a musket. It took 3-5 minutes to reload 1 shot. If you were a marksman.
Exactly, that's the most powerful thing that the tyrannical government had as well. It was more about giving people a fighting chance if tyranny surfaced again.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
I'll just let Penn and Teller explain what I am always explaining about the 2nd. They spell it out better! https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
Do you think that when the Document was written they took into account the development of the muskets these shooters use today in these massacres ...
I don't think that made a damn difference. In fact, they probably meant that the people should be just as armed as the government...but I cannot say I fully advocate that. I feel that there are enough armed people to create a pretty big problem if there was ever a tyrannical government though, and I do not see that as a bad thing.
I think it makes all the difference. When that document was written, the most powerful weapon known to man was a musket. It took 3-5 minutes to reload 1 shot. If you were a marksman.
Exactly, that's the most powerful thing that the tyrannical government had as well. It was more about giving people a fighting chance if tyranny surfaced again.
They have drones now.
So your argument is "they have drones, guess we better all surrender" if a tyrannical government tried taking over? Bet there were some saying the same thing about cannons back in the day.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
I'll just let Penn and Teller explain what I am always explaining about the 2nd. They spell it out better! https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
Do you think that when the Document was written they took into account the development of the muskets these shooters use today in these massacres ...
I don't think that made a damn difference. In fact, they probably meant that the people should be just as armed as the government...but I cannot say I fully advocate that. I feel that there are enough armed people to create a pretty big problem if there was ever a tyrannical government though, and I do not see that as a bad thing.
I think it makes all the difference. When that document was written, the most powerful weapon known to man was a musket. It took 3-5 minutes to reload 1 shot. If you were a marksman.
Exactly, that's the most powerful thing that the tyrannical government had as well. It was more about giving people a fighting chance if tyranny surfaced again.
They have drones now.
So your argument is "they have drones, guess we better all surrender" if a tyrannical government tried taking over? Bet there were some saying the same thing about cannons back in the day.
So should you be able to purchase drones that can drop bombs?
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
I'll just let Penn and Teller explain what I am always explaining about the 2nd. They spell it out better! https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
Do you think that when the Document was written they took into account the development of the muskets these shooters use today in these massacres ...
I don't think that made a damn difference. In fact, they probably meant that the people should be just as armed as the government...but I cannot say I fully advocate that. I feel that there are enough armed people to create a pretty big problem if there was ever a tyrannical government though, and I do not see that as a bad thing.
I think it makes all the difference. When that document was written, the most powerful weapon known to man was a musket. It took 3-5 minutes to reload 1 shot. If you were a marksman.
Exactly, that's the most powerful thing that the tyrannical government had as well. It was more about giving people a fighting chance if tyranny surfaced again.
They have drones now.
So your argument is "they have drones, guess we better all surrender" if a tyrannical government tried taking over? Bet there were some saying the same thing about cannons back in the day.
So should you be able to purchase drones that can drop bombs?
I feel we should be able to quickly assemble an army if needed if an invasion happened. If a tyrannical group started using drones against its people, then I would hope the people could acquire the means to stop them. My argument was more so against those saying that the 2nd was meant only for militias. I think the more likely scenario would be groups or gangs trying to grab territory. I think we should be able to properly defend our cities and towns and homes with equal force. The Mexican mafia would love a complete disarmament of the American people.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
I think when people hear the term gun control, they think they will get all of their guns taken away. That's not what I advocate. I don't want to infringe your right to own guns. Just the ones that were meant for militaries. If you are part of a well regulated militia, that's a different scenario all together.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
I think when people hear the term gun control, they think they will get all of their guns taken away. That's not what I advocate. I don't want to infringe your right to own guns. Just the ones that were meant for militaries. If you are part of a well regulated militia, that's a different scenario all together.
Did you not even watch the video I posted earlier!?!? That was exactly what I was arguing against in the wording of the 2nd. It is about the people having the right to bear arms, not just a well regulated militia. More so if that well regulated militia turned on its people. https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state = National Guard
If one of the amendments required every household to own a slave would it be right? Of course not...society changes and adapts to what is needed. Assault weapons aren't needed by the general public. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
I think when people hear the term gun control, they think they will get all of their guns taken away. That's not what I advocate. I don't want to infringe your right to own guns. Just the ones that were meant for militaries. If you are part of a well regulated militia, that's a different scenario all together.
Did you not even watch the video I posted earlier!?!? That was exactly what I was arguing against in the wording of the 2nd. It is about the people having the right to bear arms, not just a well regulated militia. More so if that well regulated militia turned on its people. https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
I've seen that video several times. You do have the right to own guns. But I also think there is a line that needs to be drawn. Why can't you own a nuke? The government has them? You simply do not need an AK-47 to defend yourself. Your cache of hand guns and shot guns is surely enough to keep the bad guys away from your home.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
I'll just let Penn and Teller explain what I am always explaining about the 2nd. They spell it out better! https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
Do you think that when the Document was written they took into account the development of the muskets these shooters use today in these massacres ...
I don't think that made a damn difference. In fact, they probably meant that the people should be just as armed as the government...but I cannot say I fully advocate that. I feel that there are enough armed people to create a pretty big problem if there was ever a tyrannical government though, and I do not see that as a bad thing.
I think it makes all the difference. When that document was written, the most powerful weapon known to man was a musket. It took 3-5 minutes to reload 1 shot. If you were a marksman.
Exactly, that's the most powerful thing that the tyrannical government had as well. It was more about giving people a fighting chance if tyranny surfaced again.
They have drones now.
So your argument is "they have drones, guess we better all surrender" if a tyrannical government tried taking over? Bet there were some saying the same thing about cannons back in the day.
His argument is that people should have drones too. And mines, hand grenades, jets, and tanks.
If you are saying you need to be prepared for the impending takeover then be prepared Gawddammit!
I'll just let Penn and Teller explain what I am always explaining about the 2nd. They spell it out better! https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
Do you think that when the Document was written they took into account the development of the muskets these shooters use today in these massacres ...
I don't think that made a damn difference. In fact, they probably meant that the people should be just as armed as the government...but I cannot say I fully advocate that. I feel that there are enough armed people to create a pretty big problem if there was ever a tyrannical government though, and I do not see that as a bad thing.
I think it makes all the difference. When that document was written, the most powerful weapon known to man was a musket. It took 3-5 minutes to reload 1 shot. If you were a marksman.
Exactly, that's the most powerful thing that the tyrannical government had as well. It was more about giving people a fighting chance if tyranny surfaced again.
They have drones now.
So your argument is "they have drones, guess we better all surrender" if a tyrannical government tried taking over? Bet there were some saying the same thing about cannons back in the day.
His argument is that people should have drones too. And mines, hand grenades, jets, and tanks.
If you are saying you need to be prepared for the impending takeover then be prepared Gawddammit!
Damn you guys assume a lot! I was merely stating that the 2nd was not written for militias to be armed. Based on the way it was written, it does not give any exceptions to any kinds of "arms". I'm sure plenty could argue that the government should not have bombs, drones, etc, etc, etc as it leaves those things wide open for civilian possession as well. If you want to ratify it to say that weapons or war or what not should be included in the definition or arms then that's a completely different conversation. My only point was that it was written in reference to the people bearing arms, not militias. we can discuss all day about what weapons should or shouldn't be in the hands of people and probably never agree, but I hope I'm at least getting my point across that it was written for "the people", not specifically for well regulated militias.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state = National Guard
If one of the amendments required every household to own a slave would it be right? Of course not...society changes and adapts to what is needed. Assault weapons aren't needed by the general public. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.
Again, completely beside the point of whether it needs to be changed or not, the original intent was not for only the National Guard and what not to be armed. It was written for if a well regulated militia such as the National Guard turned on its people. Whether that fits today's time or not, the argument that it was designed for only militias to be armed is just not accurate. They do a great job of explaining here. https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
To dumb it down: We need a well regulated militia (army, national guard, etc), but if a tyrant gets control of that militia and turns it on the people, then people have the right to arm themselves and fight back.
Some may also argue that the well regulated melitia are the people that are governed by laws and etc, but I feel the prior is more accurate.
people hide behind the second amendment because they know there is no logical reason to need to own a gun more powerful than a handgun or single shot rifle.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state = National Guard
If one of the amendments required every household to own a slave would it be right? Of course not...society changes and adapts to what is needed. Assault weapons aren't needed by the general public. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.
Again, completely beside the point of whether it needs to be changed or not, the original intent was not for only the National Guard and what not to be armed. It was written for if a well regulated militia such as the National Guard turned on its people. Whether that fits today's time or not, the argument that it was designed for only militias to be armed is just not accurate. They do a great job of explaining here. https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
To dumb it down: We need a well regulated militia (army, national guard, etc), but if a tyrant gets control of that militia and turns it on the people, then people have the right to arm themselves and fight back.
Some may also argue that the well regulated melitia are the people that are governed by laws and etc, but I feel the prior is more accurate.
Which creates the circular argument that if the intention was what you describe then we should be able to buy tanks, nukes, missiles individually to arm our militias
ridiculous
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state = National Guard
If one of the amendments required every household to own a slave would it be right? Of course not...society changes and adapts to what is needed. Assault weapons aren't needed by the general public. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.
Again, completely beside the point of whether it needs to be changed or not, the original intent was not for only the National Guard and what not to be armed. It was written for if a well regulated militia such as the National Guard turned on its people. Whether that fits today's time or not, the argument that it was designed for only militias to be armed is just not accurate. They do a great job of explaining here. https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
To dumb it down: We need a well regulated militia (army, national guard, etc), but if a tyrant gets control of that militia and turns it on the people, then people have the right to arm themselves and fight back.
Some may also argue that the well regulated melitia are the people that are governed by laws and etc, but I feel the prior is more accurate.
Which creates the circular argument that if the intention was what you describe then we should be able to buy tanks, nukes, missiles individually to arm our militias
ridiculous
Rediculous or not, that is the way it is stated! Not to arm out militias, but our people... It was written to protect the people from the government. If there were tanks, missiles, nukes around at that time then they may have written it differently...who knows. But I don't think they would have limited the "arms" to hunting rifles and shotguns either.
people hide behind the second amendment because they know there is no logical reason to need to own a gun more powerful than a handgun or single shot rifle.
People do not agree with you...straw man arguments.
people hide behind the second amendment because they know there is no logical reason to need to own a gun more powerful than a handgun or single shot rifle.
I can give you 2 reasons...
1. The zombie apocalypse 2. U.N. troops that Obama sent to take my guns
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state = National Guard
If one of the amendments required every household to own a slave would it be right? Of course not...society changes and adapts to what is needed. Assault weapons aren't needed by the general public. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.
Again, completely beside the point of whether it needs to be changed or not, the original intent was not for only the National Guard and what not to be armed. It was written for if a well regulated militia such as the National Guard turned on its people. Whether that fits today's time or not, the argument that it was designed for only militias to be armed is just not accurate. They do a great job of explaining here. https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
To dumb it down: We need a well regulated militia (army, national guard, etc), but if a tyrant gets control of that militia and turns it on the people, then people have the right to arm themselves and fight back.
Some may also argue that the well regulated melitia are the people that are governed by laws and etc, but I feel the prior is more accurate.
Which creates the circular argument that if the intention was what you describe then we should be able to buy tanks, nukes, missiles individually to arm our militias
ridiculous
Rediculous or not, that is the way it is stated! Not to arm out militias, but our people... It was written to protect the people from the government. If there were tanks, missiles, nukes around at that time then they may have written it differently...who knows. But I don't think they would have limited the "arms" to hunting rifles and shotguns either.
There was artillery back then...
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state = National Guard
If one of the amendments required every household to own a slave would it be right? Of course not...society changes and adapts to what is needed. Assault weapons aren't needed by the general public. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.
Again, completely beside the point of whether it needs to be changed or not, the original intent was not for only the National Guard and what not to be armed. It was written for if a well regulated militia such as the National Guard turned on its people. Whether that fits today's time or not, the argument that it was designed for only militias to be armed is just not accurate. They do a great job of explaining here. https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
To dumb it down: We need a well regulated militia (army, national guard, etc), but if a tyrant gets control of that militia and turns it on the people, then people have the right to arm themselves and fight back.
Some may also argue that the well regulated melitia are the people that are governed by laws and etc, but I feel the prior is more accurate.
Which creates the circular argument that if the intention was what you describe then we should be able to buy tanks, nukes, missiles individually to arm our militias
ridiculous
Rediculous or not, that is the way it is stated! Not to arm out militias, but our people... It was written to protect the people from the government. If there were tanks, missiles, nukes around at that time then they may have written it differently...who knows. But I don't think they would have limited the "arms" to hunting rifles and shotguns either.
There was artillery back then...
Yep, and anyone and everyone could own them if they had the means...people put them in their front yards...What's your point?
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state = National Guard
If one of the amendments required every household to own a slave would it be right? Of course not...society changes and adapts to what is needed. Assault weapons aren't needed by the general public. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.
Again, completely beside the point of whether it needs to be changed or not, the original intent was not for only the National Guard and what not to be armed. It was written for if a well regulated militia such as the National Guard turned on its people. Whether that fits today's time or not, the argument that it was designed for only militias to be armed is just not accurate. They do a great job of explaining here. https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
To dumb it down: We need a well regulated militia (army, national guard, etc), but if a tyrant gets control of that militia and turns it on the people, then people have the right to arm themselves and fight back.
Some may also argue that the well regulated melitia are the people that are governed by laws and etc, but I feel the prior is more accurate.
Which creates the circular argument that if the intention was what you describe then we should be able to buy tanks, nukes, missiles individually to arm our militias
ridiculous
Rediculous or not, that is the way it is stated! Not to arm out militias, but our people... It was written to protect the people from the government. If there were tanks, missiles, nukes around at that time then they may have written it differently...who knows. But I don't think they would have limited the "arms" to hunting rifles and shotguns either.
It's worded that way because not even the founding fathers saw what man could create to kill each other. It can be changed.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state = National Guard
If one of the amendments required every household to own a slave would it be right? Of course not...society changes and adapts to what is needed. Assault weapons aren't needed by the general public. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.
Again, completely beside the point of whether it needs to be changed or not, the original intent was not for only the National Guard and what not to be armed. It was written for if a well regulated militia such as the National Guard turned on its people. Whether that fits today's time or not, the argument that it was designed for only militias to be armed is just not accurate. They do a great job of explaining here. https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
To dumb it down: We need a well regulated militia (army, national guard, etc), but if a tyrant gets control of that militia and turns it on the people, then people have the right to arm themselves and fight back.
Some may also argue that the well regulated melitia are the people that are governed by laws and etc, but I feel the prior is more accurate.
Which creates the circular argument that if the intention was what you describe then we should be able to buy tanks, nukes, missiles individually to arm our militias
ridiculous
Rediculous or not, that is the way it is stated! Not to arm out militias, but our people... It was written to protect the people from the government. If there were tanks, missiles, nukes around at that time then they may have written it differently...who knows. But I don't think they would have limited the "arms" to hunting rifles and shotguns either.
There was artillery back then...
Yep, and anyone and everyone could own them if they had the means...people put them in their front yards...What's your point?
Seems like they would have clarified that "bear arms" meant to "have exactly the same weapons available that the potential tyrannic government has"....ridiculous
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
I think when people hear the term gun control, they think they will get all of their guns taken away. That's not what I advocate. I don't want to infringe your right to own guns. Just the ones that were meant for militaries. If you are part of a well regulated militia, that's a different scenario all together.
I think when people fight against gun control their main concern is not allowing stricter back ground checks but just fighting to keep what we have, for instance the gun used by the bar attacker I believe was not an AR 15 but Obama and Hillary go on the attack claiming we need to out law AR-15 automatic rifles, automatic rifles are already illegal, so with all the misinformation being given to the public to create fear and anger the gun debate will go on forever.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state = National Guard
If one of the amendments required every household to own a slave would it be right? Of course not...society changes and adapts to what is needed. Assault weapons aren't needed by the general public. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.
Again, completely beside the point of whether it needs to be changed or not, the original intent was not for only the National Guard and what not to be armed. It was written for if a well regulated militia such as the National Guard turned on its people. Whether that fits today's time or not, the argument that it was designed for only militias to be armed is just not accurate. They do a great job of explaining here. https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
To dumb it down: We need a well regulated militia (army, national guard, etc), but if a tyrant gets control of that militia and turns it on the people, then people have the right to arm themselves and fight back.
Some may also argue that the well regulated melitia are the people that are governed by laws and etc, but I feel the prior is more accurate.
Which creates the circular argument that if the intention was what you describe then we should be able to buy tanks, nukes, missiles individually to arm our militias
ridiculous
Rediculous or not, that is the way it is stated! Not to arm out militias, but our people... It was written to protect the people from the government. If there were tanks, missiles, nukes around at that time then they may have written it differently...who knows. But I don't think they would have limited the "arms" to hunting rifles and shotguns either.
There was artillery back then...
Yep, and anyone and everyone could own them if they had the means...people put them in their front yards...What's your point?
there was no law saying you couldn't own a Gatling gun back then I'll bet.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
I think when people hear the term gun control, they think they will get all of their guns taken away. That's not what I advocate. I don't want to infringe your right to own guns. Just the ones that were meant for militaries. If you are part of a well regulated militia, that's a different scenario all together.
I think when people fight against gun control their main concern is not allowing stricter back ground checks but just fighting to keep what we have, for instance the gun used by the bar attacker I believe was not an AR 15 but Obama and Hillary go on the attack claiming we need to out law AR-15 automatic rifles, automatic rifles are already illegal, so with all the misinformation being given to the public to create fear and anger the gun debate will go on forever.
Godfather.
oh come on....what is the difference between an AR-15 and the assault rifle that was used?
Aren't they basically the same thing?
Did Obama and Hillary specifically call for outlawing the AR-15 or did they refer to "assault weapons"? Or did they not really even say that at all?
Edit: disagree that the debate will go on forever. Assault weapons will be banned...it's just a matter of time.
Remember the Thomas Nine !! (10/02/2018)
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago 2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy 2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE) 2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston 2020: Oakland, Oakland:2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana 2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville 2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
A well regulated militia necessary for the security of a free state = National Guard
If one of the amendments required every household to own a slave would it be right? Of course not...society changes and adapts to what is needed. Assault weapons aren't needed by the general public. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.
Again, completely beside the point of whether it needs to be changed or not, the original intent was not for only the National Guard and what not to be armed. It was written for if a well regulated militia such as the National Guard turned on its people. Whether that fits today's time or not, the argument that it was designed for only militias to be armed is just not accurate. They do a great job of explaining here. https://youtu.be/P4zE0K22zH8
To dumb it down: We need a well regulated militia (army, national guard, etc), but if a tyrant gets control of that militia and turns it on the people, then people have the right to arm themselves and fight back.
Some may also argue that the well regulated melitia are the people that are governed by laws and etc, but I feel the prior is more accurate.
Which creates the circular argument that if the intention was what you describe then we should be able to buy tanks, nukes, missiles individually to arm our militias
ridiculous
Rediculous or not, that is the way it is stated! Not to arm out militias, but our people... It was written to protect the people from the government. If there were tanks, missiles, nukes around at that time then they may have written it differently...who knows. But I don't think they would have limited the "arms" to hunting rifles and shotguns either.
There was artillery back then...
Yep, and anyone and everyone could own them if they had the means...people put them in their front yards...What's your point?
there was no law saying you couldn't own a Gatling gun back then I'll bet.
Godfather.
That would be very impressive if it did, as it wasn't invented until 100 years later.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
I think when people hear the term gun control, they think they will get all of their guns taken away. That's not what I advocate. I don't want to infringe your right to own guns. Just the ones that were meant for militaries. If you are part of a well regulated militia, that's a different scenario all together.
I think when people fight against gun control their main concern is not allowing stricter back ground checks but just fighting to keep what we have, for instance the gun used by the bar attacker I believe was not an AR 15 but Obama and Hillary go on the attack claiming we need to out law AR-15 automatic rifles, automatic rifles are already illegal, so with all the misinformation being given to the public to create fear and anger the gun debate will go on forever.
Godfather.
oh come on....what is the difference between an AR-15 and the assault rifle that was used?
Aren't they basically the same thing?
Did Obama and Hillary specifically call for outlawing the AR-15 or did they refer to "assault weapons"? Or did they not really even say that at all?
Edit: disagree that the debate will go on forever. Assault weapons will be banned...it's just a matter of time.
yes the AR-15 was mentioned as the assault weapon but my point is that Obama and Hillary don't care what it was and didn't take the time to find out and them and the media went after a ghost.
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
I think when people hear the term gun control, they think they will get all of their guns taken away. That's not what I advocate. I don't want to infringe your right to own guns. Just the ones that were meant for militaries. If you are part of a well regulated militia, that's a different scenario all together.
I think when people fight against gun control their main concern is not allowing stricter back ground checks but just fighting to keep what we have, for instance the gun used by the bar attacker I believe was not an AR 15 but Obama and Hillary go on the attack claiming we need to out law AR-15 automatic rifles, automatic rifles are already illegal, so with all the misinformation being given to the public to create fear and anger the gun debate will go on forever.
Godfather.
oh come on....what is the difference between an AR-15 and the assault rifle that was used?
Aren't they basically the same thing?
Did Obama and Hillary specifically call for outlawing the AR-15 or did they refer to "assault weapons"? Or did they not really even say that at all?
Edit: disagree that the debate will go on forever. Assault weapons will be banned...it's just a matter of time.
yes the AR-15 was mentioned as the assault weapon but my point is that Obama and Hillary don't care what it was and didn't take the time to find out and them and the media went after a ghost.
Godfather.
Your point was that Hilary and Obama was spreading misinformation. They were not. The AR-15 mentioned was referring to Sandy hook.
If you want to complain about misinformation, trump claiming the shooter wasn't an American but was from Afghanistan takes the cake.
will myself to find a home, a home within myself we will find a way, we will find our place
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution reads: "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.
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
What are the stats when you look up "mass killings" with assault rifles versus other means?
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
this is a true today as was back then, "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.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people. I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
I think when people hear the term gun control, they think they will get all of their guns taken away. That's not what I advocate. I don't want to infringe your right to own guns. Just the ones that were meant for militaries. If you are part of a well regulated militia, that's a different scenario all together.
I think when people fight against gun control their main concern is not allowing stricter back ground checks but just fighting to keep what we have, for instance the gun used by the bar attacker I believe was not an AR 15 but Obama and Hillary go on the attack claiming we need to out law AR-15 automatic rifles, automatic rifles are already illegal, so with all the misinformation being given to the public to create fear and anger the gun debate will go on forever.
Godfather.
oh come on....what is the difference between an AR-15 and the assault rifle that was used?
Aren't they basically the same thing?
Did Obama and Hillary specifically call for outlawing the AR-15 or did they refer to "assault weapons"? Or did they not really even say that at all?
Edit: disagree that the debate will go on forever. Assault weapons will be banned...it's just a matter of time.
yes the AR-15 was mentioned as the assault weapon but my point is that Obama and Hillary don't care what it was and didn't take the time to find out and them and the media went after a ghost.
Godfather.
I agree with GF here. I've head HRC, Obama and others refer to the AR-15, even though it wasn't used. If there are implying "assault rifles" then they should just say assault rifles, and not use AR-15 as a broad term for all assault rifles. Yes, the gun was probably similar, but the AR-15 gets singled out, and has been on this thread 100 times. You can easily adapt it further to limit the number of rounds and reloading capabilities to make it like any other rifle and will keep many gun owners happy and satisfy those who want more gun control as well, but that is never suggested. Just a full out ban on a gun that wasn't used but has become the icon for terrorist attacks.
Comments
pretty simple really, I agree with back ground checks (criminal and mental health) but in no way support any banning of a rifle, besides if you want to use percentages look up the stats for homicides with an "assault rifle" compared to other methods of killing.
Godfather.
When the second amendment was written it look 60 seconds to reload. Come on man. The constitution called black people 3/5ths of a person. The document was just wrong in many cases.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
we will find a way, we will find our place
My argument was more so against those saying that the 2nd was meant only for militias.
I think the more likely scenario would be groups or gangs trying to grab territory. I think we should be able to properly defend our cities and towns and homes with equal force. The Mexican mafia would love a complete disarmament of the American people.
again, I'll point out that "mass killings" and murder in general are committed by people or groups of people.
I respect your opinion but mine is different.
Godfather.
we will find a way, we will find our place
If one of the amendments required every household to own a slave would it be right? Of course not...society changes and adapts to what is needed. Assault weapons aren't needed by the general public. To suggest otherwise is just ridiculous.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
we will find a way, we will find our place
If you are saying you need to be prepared for the impending takeover then be prepared Gawddammit!
To dumb it down: We need a well regulated militia (army, national guard, etc), but if a tyrant gets control of that militia and turns it on the people, then people have the right to arm themselves and fight back.
Some may also argue that the well regulated melitia are the people that are governed by laws and etc, but I feel the prior is more accurate.
www.headstonesband.com
ridiculous
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
1. The zombie apocalypse
2. U.N. troops that Obama sent to take my guns
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
we will find a way, we will find our place
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Godfather.
Godfather.
Aren't they basically the same thing?
Did Obama and Hillary specifically call for outlawing the AR-15 or did they refer to "assault weapons"? Or did they not really even say that at all?
Edit: disagree that the debate will go on forever. Assault weapons will be banned...it's just a matter of time.
1998: Noblesville; 2003: Noblesville; 2009: EV Nashville, Chicago, Chicago
2010: St Louis, Columbus, Noblesville; 2011: EV Chicago, East Troy, East Troy
2013: London ON, Chicago; 2014: Cincy, St Louis, Moline (NO CODE)
2016: Lexington, Wrigley #1; 2018: Wrigley, Wrigley, Boston, Boston
2020: Oakland, Oakland: 2021: EV Ohana, Ohana, Ohana, Ohana
2022: Oakland, Oakland, Nashville, Louisville; 2023: Chicago, Chicago, Noblesville
2024: Noblesville, Wrigley, Wrigley, Ohana, Ohana
Godfather.
If you want to complain about misinformation, trump claiming the shooter wasn't an American but was from Afghanistan takes the cake.
we will find a way, we will find our place