Comments by "christian wolf" (@christianwolf68) on "Supreme Court set to take up major Second Amendment case" video.

@matthewlapish1107 you missed the first part of it , like so many do "a well regulated...." meaning , there needs to be rules
15
@davidgrover5996 including the "well regulated" portion
12
@davidhakadoober._1- im a lefty person and i believe it is up to you to secure that weapon when not in use , and for it to be used in a appropriate manner , which includes practice shooing. i also believe that yes and thing that has the potential to do harm and cause possible death to another if taken, stolen or lost should be registered . i am not for taking weapons nor the right to buy in a legal fashion any weapon that the police can get their hands on . my personal belief is that if they can acquire it , and it is good enough for them it should be good enough for the rest of the public
3
oh election fraud was found, it was found to be done by a small number of republican voters
2
@troy4716 you really believe the extreme left is the only ones that are capable of or have committed fraud ? i have ocean front property for sale in North Dakota for you if you believe that
1
@troy4716 i am sure that everyone knows where and who the kneeling started with, but i bet not one of the flag molesters can state where he got that idea and who he asked the best way to object to the treatment of some americans while still being as respectful to the nation as a whole. i am a veteran of the U.S. Army. the oath i took and fought to defend covers all people. those with points i agree with, as well as those i do not. it is for all or for none. it can not be had both ways. i did not take what was done as a sing of disrespect
1
and what b of the constitution you feel is not being defended
1
@cynthiacook1646 you really missed the entire issue i was raising. the only thing that is ever spewed forth from the mouths for the 2nd amendment .........preachers is "shall not be infringed" , taking the entirety of the amendment out of context as a whole the founding fathers at the time relied upon militias as a defense of a fledgling nation, that is true. missing the beginning, "a well regulated militia" which we the people clearly are, and i am in support of being one of them , we as a species need rules and regulations to keep the worst aspects of the species in check. every state in the nation has some type of weapon regulation on the books and has for decades. do i feel that every state should be open carry? yes. with the caviot that the weapon can not be loaded, but you can have a loaded clip or speed loaded cylinder on your person as well. please do me a favor, support your personal belief with thought of your own, not with quotes from people who lived long ago that were clearly smarter than us today. use your word not someone else's.
1
@justins3847 but again no one wants to look at the first part and use their brain . it clearly states " a well regulated" meaning your right to keep and bear arms must have strict rules and regulations. some people just dont get that part or have selective eyesight
1
@evilke-kneebone8025 yes , but it is not devoid of the first part. that is my point we as the human race have done and have the ability to do some of the cruelest things to each other for the stupidest reasons. would you agree with that. if you can, then it would stand to reason, when it comes to firearms of any type we need to have rules placed on us. not for the things we all hear about on our local news, the only news worth a shit is local news, but for the things we cant think of. you have to think the founding fathers were smarter and far more insightful than damn near 90% of the country today. if you look at it in that context, we as a nation are still children. children need rules to keep them in line and to get them to act right before we let them leave the house
1
@andrewt.5567 1st the definition of regulate, control or supervise(something,especially a company or business activity) by means of rules and regulations. 2nd the term "fag" is still referred to in some places as a cigarette. exactly you must consider context when reading old documents. some people who only want to or care to see the second half of the amendment must have selective vision, to which i suggest they make an appointment to visit their optometrist
1
@cynthiacook1646 i hail from a military family as well all the way back to the hundred years war between france and england. i love history because we can always learn something new from the fuck ups of the past, but we as humans never seem to learn that lesson. thus we keep making the same mistakes just in a new form
1
@cynthiacook1646 i am not nor would i say to you " oh you dont have no idea" like i am some male dicktator. it is just my belief in the overall view we as a nation are still children. if you have children think of them. they had rules and regulations of the house they had to follow so they learned good manners and behaviors before they were cut loose on the rest of the world. i look at us as a nation the same way. we need those rules to keep our more operatic violent urges in check, after all was it not Thomas Jefferson in a letter to William Stephens Smith " The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants . It is it's natural manure ". i take this to mean, in some respects the good must sometimes suffer for the bad
1
@maxamus2012 we currently have that now . we control it by saying who can own a weapon and who can not for what ever reason . that is control. the shall not be infringed portion comes in in the words and definitions of then themselves . if you believe that under no way should a persons right to keep and bear arms should be "infringed" upon , then by that logic there should be no reason a person convicted of a felony involving a weapon should be barred for owning one. my person issue is the only part you ever hear 2nd amendment people scream about is that part alone" shall not be infringed" . i had a friend who was convicted of a drug felony . turned his life around became a big rehad guy but because of his conviction he could never own a fire arm again . he was killed in a home invasion because he didnt have a weapon to defend his home or his family . the prohibition of owning a weapon should only be applied to persons convicted of any criminal offense involving a weapon
1