Leftists Now Clamoring To Get Guns And Finding Out It's Not That Easy

[Flash]

You don't get it, states cannot create laws that restrict the Federally protected rights of its citizens that other U.S. Citizens enjoy, whether or not a leftist court rules for an unconstitutional law does not make it Constitutional
I have a feeling the courts will not be so left-leaning after the president leaves the white house.

One huge problem. Every new Justice goes through a mini bootcamp before they make their first ruling. They become Constitutionalists pretty fast. You want party rulings. Well, you aren't going to get it. The only time that may happen is when it's iffy at best on which way it can go and the Legislation hasn't done it's job. You are still waiting for the Supreme Court to rerule on Roe V Wade. Newsflash, cupcake: even the most right wingers on the supreme court have already stated that it's the law and they aren't go to overrule the previous ruling.

As for 2nd Amendment, the ONLY time the modern Supreme Court has touched the 2nd Amendment was Heller V D.C. only because there is no state Federal court to rule on it. And even then, they didn't give you what you keep crying about. Heller V is the gold standard now for Gun Regulations and it's the basis for the other rulings by the courts that allows the States, Counties and Cities to create various gun regulations. The reason for that is, the Supreme Court can only rule on Federal Matters when the lower courts are ruling on State Matters. The 2nd Amendment applies to the Feds except for the ruling that came out of Heller V. Don't look for the Supreme Court to overturn the State or District Federal Courts because that's state not federal.

I'll say it again, if you don't like the state you are living in and it's laws, move to one that you do like.

You are confused about the Bill of Rights, aren't you? You think the government can simply pass laws to circumvent the right, don't you?

There are indications that this pending NY case is going to destroy the filthy state and local gun laws.

One of the problems that we have in this country is that the stupid government does not apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do to other Constitutional rights.

There are indications that the Conservatives on the Supreme chose to take the case because they wanted to establish the concept of Strict Scrutiny for the 2nd. If they do that then it will negate not only oppressive Federal anti gun laws but also the States and Locals. It will be a great restoration of Liberty in this country.

If we don't reverse the government passing laws that negate the Bill of Rights then the BORs is not worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

The Bill of Rights suppose to be protection against government oppression. If we allow the filthy government to simply pass laws that circumvent the right then we have no rights, do we?

If the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and then the government passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are acting illegally, aren't they?

You are confused about the Bill of Right, aren't you?

Arms, not guns. Your right to own many arms have already been taken away. In fact the right to own the majority of arms available to the government are not available to individuals.

damn the stupidity with this one fudd arms were weapons of war

At the time of the bill of rights all arms were weapons of war. Part of the logic behind the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry and the states the ability to defend themself from an oppressive, rogue federal government. The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.

You are confused.

History is full of examples of a lesser armed rebellion defeating better armed government troops.

 

[ElmerMudd]

As with the right to possess a firearm, the right to self-defense is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Government has the authority under the Second Amendment to enact measures imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of guns, including licensing requirements with regard to the carrying of concealed firearms.

Indeed, your own state has a pistol permit requirement – a racist remnant from the days of Jim Crow intended to prevent African-Americans from obtaining firearms.

Yes I keep reminding you democrat leftist about your racist history and gun control
the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

It already has been infringed, you idiot. Try to buy a machine gun, Try to buy a tank. Try to buy a grenade. I could go on and on about the arms you cannot buy.

Dumb ass automatic weapons manufactured before 1986 are legal to own

You are incorrect, you fricking idiot.
Here Are The Actual Federal Laws Regulating Machine Guns In The U.S. - The Federalist
What about tanks, surface to air missles, weaponized drones, nuclear bombs? They are all arms you absolute dumbshit who does not know what they are talking about.

Red herring bullshit
Lookup class 3 weapons you dumb fuck

Have you been shot in the head causing brain damage.
I am pointing out there are many arms US citizens cannot buy. The list is long. Much longer than the list of arms they can buy.
I have referenced a few arms you cannot buy, tanks, surface to air missiles, weaponized drones.
A class 3 weapon or license has nothing to do with the arms I have referenced. You will not be buying a tank in reference to a class 3 weapon.
Dumb is Dumb is Dumb.

 

[ElmerMudd]

One huge problem. Every new Justice goes through a mini bootcamp before they make their first ruling. They become Constitutionalists pretty fast. You want party rulings. Well, you aren't going to get it. The only time that may happen is when it's iffy at best on which way it can go and the Legislation hasn't done it's job. You are still waiting for the Supreme Court to rerule on Roe V Wade. Newsflash, cupcake: even the most right wingers on the supreme court have already stated that it's the law and they aren't go to overrule the previous ruling.

As for 2nd Amendment, the ONLY time the modern Supreme Court has touched the 2nd Amendment was Heller V D.C. only because there is no state Federal court to rule on it. And even then, they didn't give you what you keep crying about. Heller V is the gold standard now for Gun Regulations and it's the basis for the other rulings by the courts that allows the States, Counties and Cities to create various gun regulations. The reason for that is, the Supreme Court can only rule on Federal Matters when the lower courts are ruling on State Matters. The 2nd Amendment applies to the Feds except for the ruling that came out of Heller V. Don't look for the Supreme Court to overturn the State or District Federal Courts because that's state not federal.

I'll say it again, if you don't like the state you are living in and it's laws, move to one that you do like.

You are confused about the Bill of Rights, aren't you? You think the government can simply pass laws to circumvent the right, don't you?

There are indications that this pending NY case is going to destroy the filthy state and local gun laws.

One of the problems that we have in this country is that the stupid government does not apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do to other Constitutional rights.

There are indications that the Conservatives on the Supreme chose to take the case because they wanted to establish the concept of Strict Scrutiny for the 2nd. If they do that then it will negate not only oppressive Federal anti gun laws but also the States and Locals. It will be a great restoration of Liberty in this country.

If we don't reverse the government passing laws that negate the Bill of Rights then the BORs is not worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

The Bill of Rights suppose to be protection against government oppression. If we allow the filthy government to simply pass laws that circumvent the right then we have no rights, do we?

If the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and then the government passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are acting illegally, aren't they?

You are confused about the Bill of Right, aren't you?

Arms, not guns. Your right to own many arms have already been taken away. In fact the right to own the majority of arms available to the government are not available to individuals.

damn the stupidity with this one fudd arms were weapons of war

At the time of the bill of rights all arms were weapons of war. Part of the logic behind the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry and the states the ability to defend themself from an oppressive, rogue federal government. The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.

You are confused.

History is full of examples of a lesser armed rebellion defeating better armed government troops.

The 2nd amendment intended to make sure that US citizens would have access to the same arms as the US government if they ever had to fight the government.
That is not the case today..

 

[satrebil]

The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.

Obligatory:

 

[Flash]

You are confused about the Bill of Rights, aren't you? You think the government can simply pass laws to circumvent the right, don't you?

There are indications that this pending NY case is going to destroy the filthy state and local gun laws.

One of the problems that we have in this country is that the stupid government does not apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do to other Constitutional rights.

There are indications that the Conservatives on the Supreme chose to take the case because they wanted to establish the concept of Strict Scrutiny for the 2nd. If they do that then it will negate not only oppressive Federal anti gun laws but also the States and Locals. It will be a great restoration of Liberty in this country.

If we don't reverse the government passing laws that negate the Bill of Rights then the BORs is not worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

The Bill of Rights suppose to be protection against government oppression. If we allow the filthy government to simply pass laws that circumvent the right then we have no rights, do we?

If the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and then the government passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are acting illegally, aren't they?

You are confused about the Bill of Right, aren't you?

Arms, not guns. Your right to own many arms have already been taken away. In fact the right to own the majority of arms available to the government are not available to individuals.

damn the stupidity with this one fudd arms were weapons of war

At the time of the bill of rights all arms were weapons of war. Part of the logic behind the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry and the states the ability to defend themself from an oppressive, rogue federal government. The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.

You are confused.

History is full of examples of a lesser armed rebellion defeating better armed government troops.

The 2nd amendment intended to make sure that US citizens would have access to the same arms as the US government if they ever had to fight the government.
That is not the case today..

I doubt very few Colonists in 1775 had the same arms as the British military. Certainly not warships and barrage cannonade and things like that. With the exception of what was supplied by the French or captured most of the arms were non military issue. Almost all the heavy weapons were captured.

The Miller case said that the 2nd applied to the protection of arms in general use by the military but the filthy government doesn't abide by the ruling.

However, the Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and if the government infringes then it is acting Illegally.

Whenever Liberal assholes talk about restricting the right to keep and bear arms you know that their real agenda is not the public safety the turds are preaching. it is that they are afraid of opposition to their agenda to turn America into a Socialist shithole.

Our Founding Fathers knew that there would always be assholes that wanted to turn the country into a shithole. That is why they recognized and codified a God given Liberty to keep and bear arms.

 

[RealDave]

Since the NRA doesn't market guns, you dope.......how do you actually come up with your B.S......

The left is actually anti American gun owner but does not want to confront gun owners directly

so they pretend that the NRA is to blame for all their troubles

Rave on lunatic.

Knowing how easily gun grabbers change colors in order to blend with their surrounding I bet your gonna tell me you are a lifelong NRA member

There are no ‘gun grabbers’ – that’s a rightwing lie.

Advocating for necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures is not to advocate for the ‘confiscation’ of firearms.

Just because the proposal on the talble does not include taking all the guns does not mean it isnt the ultimate lib goal

the left as made it clear thats where they want to go

Because liberals don't own guns.

I have a thought, why don't you & some of your gun totin' buddies stop by my house some time.

 

[Mac-7]

One huge problem. Every new Justice goes through a mini bootcamp before they make their first ruling. They become Constitutionalists pretty fast. You want party rulings. Well, you aren't going to get it. The only time that may happen is when it's iffy at best on which way it can go and the Legislation hasn't done it's job. You are still waiting for the Supreme Court to rerule on Roe V Wade. Newsflash, cupcake: even the most right wingers on the supreme court have already stated that it's the law and they aren't go to overrule the previous ruling.

As for 2nd Amendment, the ONLY time the modern Supreme Court has touched the 2nd Amendment was Heller V D.C. only because there is no state Federal court to rule on it. And even then, they didn't give you what you keep crying about. Heller V is the gold standard now for Gun Regulations and it's the basis for the other rulings by the courts that allows the States, Counties and Cities to create various gun regulations. The reason for that is, the Supreme Court can only rule on Federal Matters when the lower courts are ruling on State Matters. The 2nd Amendment applies to the Feds except for the ruling that came out of Heller V. Don't look for the Supreme Court to overturn the State or District Federal Courts because that's state not federal.

I'll say it again, if you don't like the state you are living in and it's laws, move to one that you do like.

You are confused about the Bill of Rights, aren't you? You think the government can simply pass laws to circumvent the right, don't you?

There are indications that this pending NY case is going to destroy the filthy state and local gun laws.

One of the problems that we have in this country is that the stupid government does not apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do to other Constitutional rights.

There are indications that the Conservatives on the Supreme chose to take the case because they wanted to establish the concept of Strict Scrutiny for the 2nd. If they do that then it will negate not only oppressive Federal anti gun laws but also the States and Locals. It will be a great restoration of Liberty in this country.

If we don't reverse the government passing laws that negate the Bill of Rights then the BORs is not worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

The Bill of Rights suppose to be protection against government oppression. If we allow the filthy government to simply pass laws that circumvent the right then we have no rights, do we?

If the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and then the government passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are acting illegally, aren't they?

You are confused about the Bill of Right, aren't you?

Arms, not guns. Your right to own many arms have already been taken away. In fact the right to own the majority of arms available to the government are not available to individuals.

damn the stupidity with this one fudd arms were weapons of war

At the time of the bill of rights all arms were weapons of war. Part of the logic behind the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry and the states the ability to defend themself from an oppressive, rogue federal government. The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.

You are confused.

History is full of examples of a lesser armed rebellion defeating better armed government troops.

The left is actually anti American gun owner but does not want to confront gun owners directly

so they pretend that the NRA is to blame for all their troubles

Rave on lunatic.

Knowing how easily gun grabbers change colors in order to blend with their surrounding I bet your gonna tell me you are a lifelong NRA member

There are no ‘gun grabbers’ – that’s a rightwing lie.

Advocating for necessary, proper, and Constitutional firearm regulatory measures is not to advocate for the ‘confiscation’ of firearms.

Just because the proposal on the talble does not include taking all the guns does not mean it isnt the ultimate lib goal

the left as made it clear thats where they want to go

Because liberals don't own guns.

I have a thought, why don't you & some of your gun totin' buddies stop by my house some time.

implying that you are an exceptional lib who does own guns

good for you

just keep you hands off mine

 

[Daryl Hunt]

According to Heller V D.C, you have the right to have a reasonable handgun in your home. The State, County or City has the right to require reasonable licensing and documentation for you to possess that reasonable handgun in your home. Anything else can be regulated by the State, County or City to include a total ban on a specific gun as long as it's done for public safety meeting the Due process requirement.

For instance, Mag Capacities. 10 round capacity limits do not meet the Due Process. But 15 does. It was first upheld in 2013 for Colorado in a Federal Court. Colorado went into the procedings with a 10 round capacity but during the deliberation, they lawyers picked up pretty quick that that wouldn't fly. The Colorado Congress modified the law that very day to read 15 and it sailed right on through. The cited Heller V D.C. as reasonable. It met the Due Process requirements.

The State determines the Mag Limits. Some have 15, some have 20 while others don't have any limits. As Judge Young of Boston said, "If you don't like the laws where you are, MOVE".

you have a right to self defense regradless where you are at

True, within reason. As per the Heller V ruling. And the State, County and City has the right to place requirements on when, where and how you can defend yourself outside the home.

right to self defense has no limitations it doesn't stop outside you home

As with the right to possess a firearm, the right to self-defense is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Government has the authority under the Second Amendment to enact measures imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of guns, including licensing requirements with regard to the carrying of concealed firearms.

Indeed, your own state has a pistol permit requirement – a racist remnant from the days of Jim Crow intended to prevent African-Americans from obtaining firearms.

Yes I keep reminding you democrat leftist about your racist history and gun control
the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

You won an award.

 

[ElmerMudd]

Arms, not guns. Your right to own many arms have already been taken away. In fact the right to own the majority of arms available to the government are not available to individuals.

damn the stupidity with this one fudd arms were weapons of war

At the time of the bill of rights all arms were weapons of war. Part of the logic behind the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry and the states the ability to defend themself from an oppressive, rogue federal government. The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.

You are confused.

History is full of examples of a lesser armed rebellion defeating better armed government troops.

The 2nd amendment intended to make sure that US citizens would have access to the same arms as the US government if they ever had to fight the government.
That is not the case today..

I doubt very few Colonists in 1775 had the same arms as the British military. Certainly not warships and barrage cannonade and things like that. With the exception of what was supplied by the French or captured most of the arms were non military issue. Almost all the heavy weapons were captured.

The Miller case said that the 2nd applied to the protection of arms in general use by the military but the filthy government doesn't abide by the ruling.

However, the Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and if the government infringes then it is acting Illegally.

Whenever Liberal assholes talk about restricting the right to keep and bear arms you know that their real agenda is not the public safety the turds are preaching. it is that they are afraid of opposition to their agenda to turn America into a Socialist shithole.

Our Founding Fathers knew that there would always be assholes that wanted to turn the country into a shithole. That is why they recognized and codified a God given Liberty to keep and bear arms.

The founding Fathers never dreamed there would US citizens as stupid as you.
As "arms" advanced, the US government has continually, restricted US citizens from bearing those arms.
While this has been going on there is a stupid group that has focused on guns only. The government is happy these nut cases are not smart enough the spirit of the 2nd amendment has been lost a long time ago.
If the gun advocates wanted to defend the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they would be fighting for all arms, not just guns.

 

[Flash]

damn the stupidity with this one fudd arms were weapons of war

At the time of the bill of rights all arms were weapons of war. Part of the logic behind the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry and the states the ability to defend themself from an oppressive, rogue federal government. The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.

You are confused.

History is full of examples of a lesser armed rebellion defeating better armed government troops.

The 2nd amendment intended to make sure that US citizens would have access to the same arms as the US government if they ever had to fight the government.
That is not the case today..

I doubt very few Colonists in 1775 had the same arms as the British military. Certainly not warships and barrage cannonade and things like that. With the exception of what was supplied by the French or captured most of the arms were non military issue. Almost all the heavy weapons were captured.

The Miller case said that the 2nd applied to the protection of arms in general use by the military but the filthy government doesn't abide by the ruling.

However, the Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and if the government infringes then it is acting Illegally.

Whenever Liberal assholes talk about restricting the right to keep and bear arms you know that their real agenda is not the public safety the turds are preaching. it is that they are afraid of opposition to their agenda to turn America into a Socialist shithole.

Our Founding Fathers knew that there would always be assholes that wanted to turn the country into a shithole. That is why they recognized and codified a God given Liberty to keep and bear arms.

The founding Fathers never dreamed there would US citizens as stupid as you.
As "arms" advanced, the US government has continually, restricted US citizens from bearing those arms.
While this has been going on there is a stupid group that has focused on guns only. The government is happy these nut cases are not smart enough the spirit of the 2nd amendment has been lost a long time ago.
If the gun advocates wanted to defend the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they would be fighting for all arms, not just guns.

You are confused Moon Bat.

I have 50 firearms and have never used them in a crime and never intend to use them in a crime. The Founding Fathers would be very supportive of my right to own those firearms. In fact so supportive they established that right in the Constitution.

However, they would have been ashamed of assholes like you. They would think you a threat to the Republic. Putting all the power in the hands of the government and criminals. How stupid can you be?

The crime should never be the possession of a fire arm. After all the Constitution clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Go look it up. I shit you not. The crime should be if it is used in a crime.

 

[ElmerMudd]

At the time of the bill of rights all arms were weapons of war. Part of the logic behind the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry and the states the ability to defend themself from an oppressive, rogue federal government. The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.

You are confused.

History is full of examples of a lesser armed rebellion defeating better armed government troops.

The 2nd amendment intended to make sure that US citizens would have access to the same arms as the US government if they ever had to fight the government.
That is not the case today..

I doubt very few Colonists in 1775 had the same arms as the British military. Certainly not warships and barrage cannonade and things like that. With the exception of what was supplied by the French or captured most of the arms were non military issue. Almost all the heavy weapons were captured.

The Miller case said that the 2nd applied to the protection of arms in general use by the military but the filthy government doesn't abide by the ruling.

However, the Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and if the government infringes then it is acting Illegally.

Whenever Liberal assholes talk about restricting the right to keep and bear arms you know that their real agenda is not the public safety the turds are preaching. it is that they are afraid of opposition to their agenda to turn America into a Socialist shithole.

Our Founding Fathers knew that there would always be assholes that wanted to turn the country into a shithole. That is why they recognized and codified a God given Liberty to keep and bear arms.

The founding Fathers never dreamed there would US citizens as stupid as you.
As "arms" advanced, the US government has continually, restricted US citizens from bearing those arms.
While this has been going on there is a stupid group that has focused on guns only. The government is happy these nut cases are not smart enough the spirit of the 2nd amendment has been lost a long time ago.
If the gun advocates wanted to defend the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they would be fighting for all arms, not just guns.

You are confused Moon Bat.

I have 50 firearms and have never used them in a crime and never intend to use them in a crime. The Founding Fathers would be very supportive of my right to own those firearms. In fact so supportive they established that right in the Constitution.

However, they would have been ashamed of assholes like you. They would think you a threat to the Republic. Putting all the power in the hands of the government and criminals. How stupid can you be?

The crime should never be the possession of a fire arm. After all the Constitution clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Go look it up. I shit you not. The crime should be if it is used in a crime.

I am saying you are a hypocrite if you are an advocate of the 2nd amendment and only requesting to possess guns. You are no different than the majority of Americans who support gun ownership with restrictions. They are not asking to confiscate guns, they are are supporting a 2nd amendment modified for the 21st century.
You are doing the same. You do not advocate for the full spirit of the 2nd amendment as written by the founding fathers. The founding fathers could not imagine a machine gun, a surface to air missile, a nuclear bomb; all arms

 

[Flash]

You are confused.

History is full of examples of a lesser armed rebellion defeating better armed government troops.

The 2nd amendment intended to make sure that US citizens would have access to the same arms as the US government if they ever had to fight the government.
That is not the case today..

I doubt very few Colonists in 1775 had the same arms as the British military. Certainly not warships and barrage cannonade and things like that. With the exception of what was supplied by the French or captured most of the arms were non military issue. Almost all the heavy weapons were captured.

The Miller case said that the 2nd applied to the protection of arms in general use by the military but the filthy government doesn't abide by the ruling.

However, the Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and if the government infringes then it is acting Illegally.

Whenever Liberal assholes talk about restricting the right to keep and bear arms you know that their real agenda is not the public safety the turds are preaching. it is that they are afraid of opposition to their agenda to turn America into a Socialist shithole.

Our Founding Fathers knew that there would always be assholes that wanted to turn the country into a shithole. That is why they recognized and codified a God given Liberty to keep and bear arms.

The founding Fathers never dreamed there would US citizens as stupid as you.
As "arms" advanced, the US government has continually, restricted US citizens from bearing those arms.
While this has been going on there is a stupid group that has focused on guns only. The government is happy these nut cases are not smart enough the spirit of the 2nd amendment has been lost a long time ago.
If the gun advocates wanted to defend the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they would be fighting for all arms, not just guns.

You are confused Moon Bat.

I have 50 firearms and have never used them in a crime and never intend to use them in a crime. The Founding Fathers would be very supportive of my right to own those firearms. In fact so supportive they established that right in the Constitution.

However, they would have been ashamed of assholes like you. They would think you a threat to the Republic. Putting all the power in the hands of the government and criminals. How stupid can you be?

The crime should never be the possession of a fire arm. After all the Constitution clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Go look it up. I shit you not. The crime should be if it is used in a crime.

I am saying you are a hypocrite if you are an advocate of the 2nd amendment and only requesting to possess guns. You are no different than the majority of Americans who support gun ownership with restrictions. They are not asking to confiscate guns, they are are supporting a 2nd amendment modified for the 21st century.
You are doing the same. You do not advocate for the full spirit of the 2nd amendment as written by the founding fathers. The founding fathers could not imagine a machine gun, a surface to air missile, a nuclear bomb; all arms

You stupid Moon Bats don't have any concept of Liberty. That is why you assholes want to "modify" it.

My fire arms are not a threat to you unless you try to make this country a shithole or try to harm my family.

By the way, is this you?

 

[ElmerMudd]

The 2nd amendment intended to make sure that US citizens would have access to the same arms as the US government if they ever had to fight the government.
That is not the case today..

I doubt very few Colonists in 1775 had the same arms as the British military. Certainly not warships and barrage cannonade and things like that. With the exception of what was supplied by the French or captured most of the arms were non military issue. Almost all the heavy weapons were captured.

The Miller case said that the 2nd applied to the protection of arms in general use by the military but the filthy government doesn't abide by the ruling.

However, the Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and if the government infringes then it is acting Illegally.

Whenever Liberal assholes talk about restricting the right to keep and bear arms you know that their real agenda is not the public safety the turds are preaching. it is that they are afraid of opposition to their agenda to turn America into a Socialist shithole.

Our Founding Fathers knew that there would always be assholes that wanted to turn the country into a shithole. That is why they recognized and codified a God given Liberty to keep and bear arms.

The founding Fathers never dreamed there would US citizens as stupid as you.
As "arms" advanced, the US government has continually, restricted US citizens from bearing those arms.
While this has been going on there is a stupid group that has focused on guns only. The government is happy these nut cases are not smart enough the spirit of the 2nd amendment has been lost a long time ago.
If the gun advocates wanted to defend the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they would be fighting for all arms, not just guns.

You are confused Moon Bat.

I have 50 firearms and have never used them in a crime and never intend to use them in a crime. The Founding Fathers would be very supportive of my right to own those firearms. In fact so supportive they established that right in the Constitution.

However, they would have been ashamed of assholes like you. They would think you a threat to the Republic. Putting all the power in the hands of the government and criminals. How stupid can you be?

The crime should never be the possession of a fire arm. After all the Constitution clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Go look it up. I shit you not. The crime should be if it is used in a crime.

I am saying you are a hypocrite if you are an advocate of the 2nd amendment and only requesting to possess guns. You are no different than the majority of Americans who support gun ownership with restrictions. They are not asking to confiscate guns, they are are supporting a 2nd amendment modified for the 21st century.
You are doing the same. You do not advocate for the full spirit of the 2nd amendment as written by the founding fathers. The founding fathers could not imagine a machine gun, a surface to air missile, a nuclear bomb; all arms

You stupid Moon Bats don't have any concept of Liberty. That is why you assholes want to "modify" it.

My fire arms are not a threat to you unless you try to make this country a shithole or try to harm my family.

By the way, is this you?

You cannot address my question so you go into your canned 2nd amendment speech.
I am not advocating for any further restrictions on guns. I am asking if you are pro 2nd amendment, why are you not asking for access to more arms than just guns. If you are not, you are not a true advocate of the 2nd amendment.

 

[Flash]

I doubt very few Colonists in 1775 had the same arms as the British military. Certainly not warships and barrage cannonade and things like that. With the exception of what was supplied by the French or captured most of the arms were non military issue. Almost all the heavy weapons were captured.

The Miller case said that the 2nd applied to the protection of arms in general use by the military but the filthy government doesn't abide by the ruling.

However, the Bill of Rights says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and if the government infringes then it is acting Illegally.

Whenever Liberal assholes talk about restricting the right to keep and bear arms you know that their real agenda is not the public safety the turds are preaching. it is that they are afraid of opposition to their agenda to turn America into a Socialist shithole.

Our Founding Fathers knew that there would always be assholes that wanted to turn the country into a shithole. That is why they recognized and codified a God given Liberty to keep and bear arms.

The founding Fathers never dreamed there would US citizens as stupid as you.
As "arms" advanced, the US government has continually, restricted US citizens from bearing those arms.
While this has been going on there is a stupid group that has focused on guns only. The government is happy these nut cases are not smart enough the spirit of the 2nd amendment has been lost a long time ago.
If the gun advocates wanted to defend the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they would be fighting for all arms, not just guns.

You are confused Moon Bat.

I have 50 firearms and have never used them in a crime and never intend to use them in a crime. The Founding Fathers would be very supportive of my right to own those firearms. In fact so supportive they established that right in the Constitution.

However, they would have been ashamed of assholes like you. They would think you a threat to the Republic. Putting all the power in the hands of the government and criminals. How stupid can you be?

The crime should never be the possession of a fire arm. After all the Constitution clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Go look it up. I shit you not. The crime should be if it is used in a crime.

I am saying you are a hypocrite if you are an advocate of the 2nd amendment and only requesting to possess guns. You are no different than the majority of Americans who support gun ownership with restrictions. They are not asking to confiscate guns, they are are supporting a 2nd amendment modified for the 21st century.
You are doing the same. You do not advocate for the full spirit of the 2nd amendment as written by the founding fathers. The founding fathers could not imagine a machine gun, a surface to air missile, a nuclear bomb; all arms

You stupid Moon Bats don't have any concept of Liberty. That is why you assholes want to "modify" it.

My fire arms are not a threat to you unless you try to make this country a shithole or try to harm my family.

By the way, is this you?

You cannot address my question so you go into your canned 2nd amendment speech.
I am not advocating for any further restrictions on guns. I am asking if you are pro 2nd amendment, why are you not asking for access to more arms than just guns. If you are not, you are not a true advocate of the 2nd amendment.

I think you are confused and don't know what the hell you are bitching about.

I very clearly said that I don't think it should ever be a crime to posses an arm, only if you commit a crime with it. What part of that didn't you understand?

 

[ElmerMudd]

The founding Fathers never dreamed there would US citizens as stupid as you.
As "arms" advanced, the US government has continually, restricted US citizens from bearing those arms.
While this has been going on there is a stupid group that has focused on guns only. The government is happy these nut cases are not smart enough the spirit of the 2nd amendment has been lost a long time ago.
If the gun advocates wanted to defend the spirit of the 2nd amendment, they would be fighting for all arms, not just guns.

You are confused Moon Bat.

I have 50 firearms and have never used them in a crime and never intend to use them in a crime. The Founding Fathers would be very supportive of my right to own those firearms. In fact so supportive they established that right in the Constitution.

However, they would have been ashamed of assholes like you. They would think you a threat to the Republic. Putting all the power in the hands of the government and criminals. How stupid can you be?

The crime should never be the possession of a fire arm. After all the Constitution clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Go look it up. I shit you not. The crime should be if it is used in a crime.

I am saying you are a hypocrite if you are an advocate of the 2nd amendment and only requesting to possess guns. You are no different than the majority of Americans who support gun ownership with restrictions. They are not asking to confiscate guns, they are are supporting a 2nd amendment modified for the 21st century.
You are doing the same. You do not advocate for the full spirit of the 2nd amendment as written by the founding fathers. The founding fathers could not imagine a machine gun, a surface to air missile, a nuclear bomb; all arms

You stupid Moon Bats don't have any concept of Liberty. That is why you assholes want to "modify" it.

My fire arms are not a threat to you unless you try to make this country a shithole or try to harm my family.

By the way, is this you?

You cannot address my question so you go into your canned 2nd amendment speech.
I am not advocating for any further restrictions on guns. I am asking if you are pro 2nd amendment, why are you not asking for access to more arms than just guns. If you are not, you are not a true advocate of the 2nd amendment.

I think you are confused and don't know what the hell you are bitching about.

I very clearly said that I don't think it should ever be a crime to posses an arm, only if you commit a crime with it. What part of that didn't you understand?

Thank you, now I understand. So to be clear, you have no issue with any citizen possessing a surface to air missile, a tank, a weaponized drone etc. just so they are not used in a crime. Should people be screened before they can buy a tank?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You don't get it, states cannot create laws that restrict the Federally protected rights of its citizens that other U.S. Citizens enjoy, whether or not a leftist court rules for an unconstitutional law does not make it Constitutional
I have a feeling the courts will not be so left-leaning after the president leaves the white house.

One huge problem. Every new Justice goes through a mini bootcamp before they make their first ruling. They become Constitutionalists pretty fast. You want party rulings. Well, you aren't going to get it. The only time that may happen is when it's iffy at best on which way it can go and the Legislation hasn't done it's job. You are still waiting for the Supreme Court to rerule on Roe V Wade. Newsflash, cupcake: even the most right wingers on the supreme court have already stated that it's the law and they aren't go to overrule the previous ruling.

As for 2nd Amendment, the ONLY time the modern Supreme Court has touched the 2nd Amendment was Heller V D.C. only because there is no state Federal court to rule on it. And even then, they didn't give you what you keep crying about. Heller V is the gold standard now for Gun Regulations and it's the basis for the other rulings by the courts that allows the States, Counties and Cities to create various gun regulations. The reason for that is, the Supreme Court can only rule on Federal Matters when the lower courts are ruling on State Matters. The 2nd Amendment applies to the Feds except for the ruling that came out of Heller V. Don't look for the Supreme Court to overturn the State or District Federal Courts because that's state not federal.

I'll say it again, if you don't like the state you are living in and it's laws, move to one that you do like.

You are confused about the Bill of Rights, aren't you? You think the government can simply pass laws to circumvent the right, don't you?

There are indications that this pending NY case is going to destroy the filthy state and local gun laws.

One of the problems that we have in this country is that the stupid government does not apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do to other Constitutional rights.

There are indications that the Conservatives on the Supreme chose to take the case because they wanted to establish the concept of Strict Scrutiny for the 2nd. If they do that then it will negate not only oppressive Federal anti gun laws but also the States and Locals. It will be a great restoration of Liberty in this country.

If we don't reverse the government passing laws that negate the Bill of Rights then the BORs is not worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

The Bill of Rights suppose to be protection against government oppression. If we allow the filthy government to simply pass laws that circumvent the right then we have no rights, do we?

If the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and then the government passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are acting illegally, aren't they?

You are confused about the Bill of Right, aren't you?

Arms, not guns. Your right to own many arms have already been taken away. In fact the right to own the majority of arms available to the government are not available to individuals.

damn the stupidity with this one fudd arms were weapons of war

At the time of the bill of rights all arms were weapons of war. Part of the logic behind the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry and the states the ability to defend themself from an oppressive, rogue federal government. The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.

Do you are completely ignorant of the facts Have you ever heard of a country called Vietnam? Afghanistan? And weapons of war are protected by the second amendment.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are confused Moon Bat.

I have 50 firearms and have never used them in a crime and never intend to use them in a crime. The Founding Fathers would be very supportive of my right to own those firearms. In fact so supportive they established that right in the Constitution.

However, they would have been ashamed of assholes like you. They would think you a threat to the Republic. Putting all the power in the hands of the government and criminals. How stupid can you be?

The crime should never be the possession of a fire arm. After all the Constitution clearly says that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Go look it up. I shit you not. The crime should be if it is used in a crime.

I am saying you are a hypocrite if you are an advocate of the 2nd amendment and only requesting to possess guns. You are no different than the majority of Americans who support gun ownership with restrictions. They are not asking to confiscate guns, they are are supporting a 2nd amendment modified for the 21st century.
You are doing the same. You do not advocate for the full spirit of the 2nd amendment as written by the founding fathers. The founding fathers could not imagine a machine gun, a surface to air missile, a nuclear bomb; all arms

You stupid Moon Bats don't have any concept of Liberty. That is why you assholes want to "modify" it.

My fire arms are not a threat to you unless you try to make this country a shithole or try to harm my family.

By the way, is this you?

You cannot address my question so you go into your canned 2nd amendment speech.
I am not advocating for any further restrictions on guns. I am asking if you are pro 2nd amendment, why are you not asking for access to more arms than just guns. If you are not, you are not a true advocate of the 2nd amendment.

I think you are confused and don't know what the hell you are bitching about.

I very clearly said that I don't think it should ever be a crime to posses an arm, only if you commit a crime with it. What part of that didn't you understand?

Thank you, now I understand. So to be clear, you have no issue with any citizen possessing a surface to air missile, a tank, a weaponized drone etc. just so they are not used in a crime. Should people be screened before they can buy a tank?

So you want to buy a tank ok
Own A Tank

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Yes I keep reminding you democrat leftist about your racist history and gun control
the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

It already has been infringed, you idiot. Try to buy a machine gun, Try to buy a tank. Try to buy a grenade. I could go on and on about the arms you cannot buy.

Dumb ass automatic weapons manufactured before 1986 are legal to own

You are incorrect, you fricking idiot.
Here Are The Actual Federal Laws Regulating Machine Guns In The U.S. - The Federalist
What about tanks, surface to air missles, weaponized drones, nuclear bombs? They are all arms you absolute dumbshit who does not know what they are talking about.

Red herring bullshit
Lookup class 3 weapons you dumb fuck

Have you been shot in the head causing brain damage.
I am pointing out there are many arms US citizens cannot buy. The list is long. Much longer than the list of arms they can buy.
I have referenced a few arms you cannot buy, tanks, surface to air missiles, weaponized drones.
A class 3 weapon or license has nothing to do with the arms I have referenced. You will not be buying a tank in reference to a class 3 weapon.
Dumb is Dumb is Dumb.

A class 3 weapon you dumb fuck is an automatic firearm

 

[bigrebnc1775]

you have a right to self defense regradless where you are at

True, within reason. As per the Heller V ruling. And the State, County and City has the right to place requirements on when, where and how you can defend yourself outside the home.

right to self defense has no limitations it doesn't stop outside you home

As with the right to possess a firearm, the right to self-defense is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any gun whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.

Government has the authority under the Second Amendment to enact measures imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of guns, including licensing requirements with regard to the carrying of concealed firearms.

Indeed, your own state has a pistol permit requirement – a racist remnant from the days of Jim Crow intended to prevent African-Americans from obtaining firearms.

Yes I keep reminding you democrat leftist about your racist history and gun control
the right of the people to keep and bear arms SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED

You won an award.
View attachment 314165

showing your trollish stupidity isn't making your argument winable

 

[Leo123]

So you want to buy a tank ok
Own A Tank

I'd like to own one however, I believe I could not afford the fuel/maintenance cost and I wonder if I could actually get ammo or if it would even be capable of firing. It might make a good yard ornament though!!