IGX

Innocent human exercises his 2nd Amendment rights, and protects other innocent humans from rampaging pavement apes.

http://www.foxcarolina.com/story/253732 ... I.facebook

Isn't that 8 hours of requiring training and then proving you can responsibly wield your weapon an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights?

Not in AZ baby!

there was in incident in Houston where some perp grabbed a ladies purse and tried to get away at a gas station, but it ended up dragging her out of the car, and a local armed citizen (same ethnicity as the perp) busted out his pistola and made the perp(s) lay down on the pavement until the popo came, who properly beat, tasered and maced them.

nafod wrote:Isn't that 8 hours of requiring training and then proving you can responsibly wield your weapon an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights?

Yes. Dumb question

Nafod hasn't met a unalienable right he doesn't want the government to infringe upon in some shape or form.

nafod wrote:Isn't that 8 hours of requiring training and then proving you can responsibly wield your weapon an infringement on 2nd Amendment rights?

It closely approaches the penumbra of the 2nd.

It sounds like the shooting victim/criminal was exercising his 2nd Amendment rights. Brave patriot.

nafod wrote:It sounds like the shooting victim/criminal was exercising his 2nd Amendment rights. Brave patriot.

To think, the US Government gave this ^^^Tard^^^ a commission in the US Navy?

Batboy2/75 wrote:

nafod wrote:It sounds like the shooting victim/criminal was exercising his 2nd Amendment rights. Brave patriot.

To think, the US Government gave this ^^^Tard^^^ a commission in the US Navy?

Up until the time he started committing a crime, he was good to go by your standards, right? Concealed carry and screw the intrusive government?

nafod wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:

nafod wrote:It sounds like the shooting victim/criminal was exercising his 2nd Amendment rights. Brave patriot.

To think, the US Government gave this ^^^Tard^^^ a commission in the US Navy?

Up until the time he started committing a crime, he was good to go by your standards, right? Concealed carry and screw the intrusive government?

The fact that you need a lesson in unalienable rights (and where they begin and end) speaks volumes about your ignorance and your willingness to be a ward of the state.

Batboy2/75 wrote:

nafod wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:

nafod wrote:It sounds like the shooting victim/criminal was exercising his 2nd Amendment rights. Brave patriot.

To think, the US Government gave this ^^^Tard^^^ a commission in the US Navy?

Up until the time he started committing a crime, he was good to go by your standards, right? Concealed carry and screw the intrusive government?

The fact that you need a lesson in unalienable rights (and where they begin and end) speaks volumes about your ignorance and your willingness to be a ward of the state.

So I'm right, correct?

The answer is obvious; the right is unalienable. This right does not end until you infringe upon the rights of others.

The fact that you are trying to insinuate that the answer is wrong and or flawed, speaks to your willingness to support the fascist state and your gross ignorance.

Inalienable.

Bud Charniga's gaping asshole wrote:Inalienable.

Sorry brainiac; the terms are interchangeable.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/unalienable.htm

Move on and find another thread to try to prove you are the smartest guy in the room.

Batboy2/75 wrote:The answer is obvious; the right is unalienable. This right does not end until you infringe upon the rights of others.

STOP INFRINGING HIPPIE

Grandpa's Spells wrote:

Batboy2/75 wrote:The answer is obvious; the right is unalienable. This right does not end until you infringe upon the rights of others.

STOP INFRINGING HIPPIE

Go bake some cookies.

Someone carrying a hand gun, rifle, knife, sword or any weapon infringes on no ones rights. My using the weapon illegally against another person is the infringement.

Shafpocalypse Now wrote:there was in incident in Houston where some perp grabbed a ladies purse and tried to get away at a gas station, but it ended up dragging her out of the car, and a local armed citizen (same ethnicity as the perp) busted out his pistola and made the perp(s) lay down on the pavement until the popo came, who properly beat, tasered and maced them.

I can't help but notice the manner in which you worded that. It wasn't an accident, I am sure if that. And the humor was not lost on me.

Batboy2/75 wrote:

Bud Charniga's gaping asshole wrote:Inalienable.

Sorry brainiac; the terms are interchangeable.

http://www.ushistory.org/declaration/unalienable.htm

Move on and find another thread to try to prove you are the smartest guy in the room.

sure thing, hoss

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2011 ... tml?ref=us

Freedom is winning! Vast improvement in 30 years.
Thank you, NRA.

nafod wrote: Up until the time he started committing a crime, he was good to go by your standards, right? Concealed carry and screw the intrusive government?

What are you, the Commissar of PreCrime?
Yes, if you're an adult non-felon, you have the right to carry. You are a criminal when you use your until-then legal weapon against an innocent.

johno wrote:

nafod wrote: Up until the time he started committing a crime, he was good to go by your standards, right? Concealed carry and screw the intrusive government?

What are you, the Commissar of PreCrime?
Yes, if you're an adult non-felon, you have the right to carry. You are a criminal when you use your until-then legal weapon against an innocent.

He wasn't legally carrying, since he didn't have the onerous license and training that goes with it.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21346/Crime- ... itain.aspx

Anybody have a guess on what the differences are between gun laws in the US and UK?

nafod wrote:

johno wrote:

nafod wrote: Up until the time he started committing a crime, he was good to go by your standards, right? Concealed carry and screw the intrusive government?

What are you, the Commissar of PreCrime?
Yes, if you're an adult non-felon, you have the right to carry. You are a criminal when you use your until-then legal weapon against an innocent.

He wasn't legally carrying, since he didn't have the onerous license and training that goes with it.

Well, if he had the training & license, I'm sure he wouldn't have committed the crime. Dumbass.

If he had a CWP then it would have been his inalienable right to decide who was a threat to him and who should have been killed that day.