Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

[bripat9643]

United States v. Miller says otherwise.

Another wrong court decision.

 

[bripat9643]

Fucking moron, I never said the court is infallible. I said they're not wrong just because you disagree with them.

Fucking moron, yes you did imply they are infallible because you claim something is constitutional simply because the SC says it is

 

[hadit]

United States v. Miller says otherwise.

Your name doesn't come up in that case. You have no standing.

 

[Faun]

Fucking moron, yes you did imply they are infallible because you claim something is constitutional simply because the SC says it is

LOL

Fucking moron, that's actually how our government functions... something IS constitutional when the Supreme Court rules it is.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??

 

[Faun]

Your name doesn't come up in that case. You have no standing.

You don't know my name. And again, there's already been a ban on those types of weapons and legal challenges against it lost because the government can ban certain types of firearms.

 

[hadit]

You don't know my name. And again, there's already been a ban on those types of weapons and legal challenges against it lost because the government can ban certain types of firearms.

The fact is, you can claim someone doesn't "need" a certain type of firearm, but unless the courts agree, your claim is groundless.

 

[Faun]

The fact is, you can claim someone doesn't "need" a certain type of firearm...

Which is what I did.

but unless the courts agree...

They already have.

...your claim is groundless.

Nope, not groundless. Again, United States v. Miller ruled the government can ban some types of firearms. Again, the government already banned AR-15 types of firearms and defeated legal challenges against that ban.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL

Fucking moron, that's actually how our government functions... something IS constitutional when the Supreme Court rules it is.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??

That isn't how reality functions. What the SC says doesn't necessary comport with what the document actually says.

Please tell us, is it possible for the SC to be wrong? Yes or no?

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

 

[Faun]

That isn't how reality functions. What the SC says doesn't necessary comport with what the document actually says.

Please tell us, is it possible for the SC to be wrong? Yes or no?

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

LOL

You poor thing, you truly have no idea how the government works.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

 

[bripat9643]

LOL

You poor thing, you truly have no idea how the government works.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

I know how reality functions. The court is not infallible, but here you are pretending it is, but you don't want to admit it.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever?

 

[Faun]

I know how reality functions. The court is not infallible, but here you are pretending it is, but you don't want to admit it.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever?

LOL

Now you prove to be so brain-dead, you can't even think up your own insults. How sad is that?

Again, fucking moron, I never said the Supreme Court is infallible. I can't help you're too fucking retarded to understand I already said that.

I also pointed out the Supreme Court is not wrong just because a fucking moron like you disagrees with them. I can't help you understand that either since I already said that too.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

 

[hadit]

Which is what I did.



They already have.



Nope, not groundless. Again, United States v. Miller ruled the government can ban some types of firearms. Again, the government already banned AR-15 types of firearms and defeated legal challenges against that ban.

1. It's not the law-abiding gun owner who's shooting up schools. They can have whatever firepower they deem either necessary or desirable. They're not breaking the law or hurting anyone.
2. AR's still account for a very small percentage of "gun deaths". Trying to eliminate them will do precisely zero to the number of deaths. Tell you what, since the AR has been de-criminalized, has the number of gun deaths gone up or down? That should tell you what will likely happen if you again criminalize big, black, scary-looking guns.

 

[Faun]

1. It's not the law-abiding gun owner who's shooting up schools. They can have whatever firepower they deem either necessary or desirable. They're not breaking the law or hurting anyone.
2. AR's still account for a very small percentage of "gun deaths". Trying to eliminate them will do precisely zero to the number of deaths. Tell you what, since the AR has been de-criminalized, has the number of gun deaths gone up or down? That should tell you what will likely happen if you again criminalize big, black, scary-looking guns.

Again ... it's constitutional to ban those guns. Again ... it's been done before, getting past legal objections. Again ... it can be done again.

Nothing in your post refutes any of that.

 

[hadit]

Again ... it's constitutional to ban those guns. Again ... it's been done before, getting past legal objections. Again ... it can be done again.

Nothing in your post refutes any of that.

Your OPINION about what someone desires for home defense is worthless. That's what I've been saying this whole time, not whether a black gun can be criminalized then decriminalized, then criminalized again.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL

You poor thing, you truly have no idea how the government works.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

I watching you weasel when you get caught saying something stupid:

Answer the question, dumb fuck, can the SC be wrong or not?

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

 

[Faun]

I watching you weasel when you get caught saying something stupid:

Answer the question, dumb fuck, can the SC be wrong or not?

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever???

I already answered that, fucking moron, by pointing out I never denied they can be wrong. That's just a strawman diversion from you because you don't like the fact I pointed out that you're not the arbitrator of whether they're right or not.

 

[bripat9643]

Again ... it's constitutional to ban those guns. Again ... it's been done before, getting past legal objections. Again ... it can be done again.

Nothing in your post refutes any of that.

Why, because the Supreme Court it infallible? Where does the 2nd Amendment say it's OK to ban certain kinds of weapons?

 

[bripat9643]

I already answered that, fucking moron, by pointing out I never denied they can be wrong. That's just a strawman diversion from you because you don't like the fact I pointed out that you're not the arbitrator of whether they're right or not.

Ye, but then whenever asked to prove your claim is constitutional, you do nothing but cite the Supreme Court over and over.

 

[hadit]

I already answered that, fucking moron, by pointing out I never denied they can be wrong. That's just a strawman diversion from you because you don't like the fact I pointed out that you're not the arbitrator of whether they're right or not.

And you're not the arbitrator of who needs what to defend their home. It just doesn't matter if a black scary looking gun can be outlawed.

 

[bripat9643]

LOL

Fucking moron, that's actually how our government functions... something IS constitutional when the Supreme Court rules it is.

Are you ever not a fucking moron?

Ever??

It may be what the government can legally enforce, but that doesn't make it constitutional in any absolute sense. No one is talking about how the government functions. The government is strictly dysfunctional, so that discussion is a total red herring.