Steve Schmidt: ‘It Is Harder to Buy Cough Medicine Than It Is to Buy an AK-47’

[2aguy]

No answer to my question in post #2. It`s a serious question.

I`m not a gun owner myself but is there anything to stop me from buying a dozen of these weapons that I don`t even know how to operate? I don`t have a criminal record.

NNNope! GOD BLESS AMERICA!

So you can`t answer a simple question that I asked? You seem to be a simple person.

I did answer your question fagatron. If you dont have a felony you can buy a dozen rifles of all colors and styles.There is nothing stopping you at all. But seeing as how you're probably a shitlib...I would stick to butt plugs if I were you.

So it really is easier to buy an assault rifle than cough medicine and Steve Schmidt was right. Why the fuck you`re bringing your gay fantasies here is puzzling though.

No...it is not easier to buy cough medicine...you need to go through a federal background check to buy those guns. If you buy from a private seller you can't have a crimnal record, or once you are caught with the guns you go to jail.

If you are a criminal, you can't buy any guns, and if you are caught with guns you go to jail...

If you are a criminal and you are caught with cough medicine, nothing happens........except your cough gets better.

Moron.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Democrats are acting like somehow since the Constitution was written, the right to self defense has changed. No it hasn't. If this joker wasn't so filthy rich, he would go into any drug store himself and see shelves of cough syrup.

Bullshit. Nobody is acting like that. People are acting as if guns have changed. Because they have.

The the People have a right to those guns because they have a right to self defense. That right means that the Public has at least, the very least, the same access to the same kinds of weapons criminals have.

Actually, the intent of the Founding Fathers was that the public have access to the same weapons as the government has, but costs being what they are, that's impossible.

"The the People have a right to those guns because they have a right to self defense"

Says you. And your psychic guess to the Founding fathers intent will be ignored.

They wrote down their intent...genius...

They wrote this down: "he intent of the Founding Fathers was that the public have access to the same weapons as the government has"....?

This is what you just claimed.

Okay, but I can't find evidence of this. will you now produce it?

 

[2aguy]

I`m not a gun owner myself but is there anything to stop me from buying a dozen of these weapons that I don`t even know how to operate? I don`t have a criminal record.

No....after you pass a federal background check. Do you have to pass a federal background check to get cough medicine?

And if you buy them from a private seller, and aren't a felon....still no problem...since again, you aren't a felon. If you are a felon, when you are caught with them, you will go to jail. And then democrats, like you...will let you back out on the street...while we who support common sense gun laws want you in jail, for illegal possession of guns, for 30 years....but guys like you keep allowing violent criminals back on the street..the ones who are committing guns crimes..

In what universe do you always have to have a federal background check to buy an AK-47? Not this one. Welcome to our universe, traveler.


Frankly, I would expect such an obsessive gun fetishist not to have made this stupid mistake.

In fact if you buy a military rifle...the AK-47 you have to go through not only a federal background check but you have to deal with the ATF...

If you buy a civilian rifle that looks like an AK-47, which is nothing more than a semi auto rifle for self defense......you still go through a federal background check....

Why are you anti gunners so fucking stupid.

 

[Darkwind]

Democrats are acting like somehow since the Constitution was written, the right to self defense has changed. No it hasn't. If this joker wasn't so filthy rich, he would go into any drug store himself and see shelves of cough syrup.

Bullshit. Nobody is acting like that. People are acting as if guns have changed. Because they have.

Bullshit.

Guns are doing what guns have done since the invention of the gun.

You can start a new organization and call it
Body Counts Don`t Matter

I'll start a better one, called "Intellect over emotion" with a sub-chapter of "Rights over Oppression".

 

[AVISSSER]

Why do you communicate like an 8 year old? Are you an 8 year old?

I bet you would like that...pervo.

You`re far too immature to be allowed to play with guns and I hope someone brings that to your mommy and daddy`s attention before you hurt yourself or one of your little playmates.

Take your fantasies somewhere else perv.

 

[Darkwind]

Democrats are acting like somehow since the Constitution was written, the right to self defense has changed. No it hasn't. If this joker wasn't so filthy rich, he would go into any drug store himself and see shelves of cough syrup.

Bullshit. Nobody is acting like that. People are acting as if guns have changed. Because they have.

The the People have a right to those guns because they have a right to self defense. That right means that the Public has at least, the very least, the same access to the same kinds of weapons criminals have.

Actually, the intent of the Founding Fathers was that the public have access to the same weapons as the government has, but costs being what they are, that's impossible.

"The the People have a right to those guns because they have a right to self defense"

Says you. And your psychic guess to the Founding fathers intent will be ignored.

They wrote down their intent...genius...

They wrote this down: "he intent of the Founding Fathers was that the public have access to the same weapons as the government has"....?

This is what you just claimed.

Okay, but I can't find evidence of this. will you now produce it?

No, you simply don't understand the document in question.

We don't get the right to bear arms from the government.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

I`m not a gun owner myself but is there anything to stop me from buying a dozen of these weapons that I don`t even know how to operate? I don`t have a criminal record.

No....after you pass a federal background check. Do you have to pass a federal background check to get cough medicine?

And if you buy them from a private seller, and aren't a felon....still no problem...since again, you aren't a felon. If you are a felon, when you are caught with them, you will go to jail. And then democrats, like you...will let you back out on the street...while we who support common sense gun laws want you in jail, for illegal possession of guns, for 30 years....but guys like you keep allowing violent criminals back on the street..the ones who are committing guns crimes..

In what universe do you always have to have a federal background check to buy an AK-47? Not this one. Welcome to our universe, traveler.


Frankly, I would expect such an obsessive gun fetishist not to have made this stupid mistake.

In fact if you buy a military rifle...the AK-47 you have to go through not only a federal background check but you have to deal with the ATF...

If you buy a civilian rifle that looks like an AK-47, which is nothing more than a semi auto rifle for self defense......you still go through a federal background check....

Why are you anti gunners so fucking stupid.

no you don't . you are simply incorrect.

 

[2aguy]

Democrats are acting like somehow since the Constitution was written, the right to self defense has changed. No it hasn't. If this joker wasn't so filthy rich, he would go into any drug store himself and see shelves of cough syrup.

Bullshit. Nobody is acting like that. People are acting as if guns have changed. Because they have.

The the People have a right to those guns because they have a right to self defense. That right means that the Public has at least, the very least, the same access to the same kinds of weapons criminals have.

Actually, the intent of the Founding Fathers was that the public have access to the same weapons as the government has, but costs being what they are, that's impossible.

"The the People have a right to those guns because they have a right to self defense"

Says you. And your psychic guess to the Founding fathers intent will be ignored.

They wrote down their intent...genius...

They wrote this down: "he intent of the Founding Fathers was that the public have access to the same weapons as the government has"....?

This is what you just claimed.

Okay, but I can't find evidence of this. will you now produce it?

Here...shit head....

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 US 570 - Supreme Court 2008 - Google Scholar


Page 21...

Thus, the right secured in 1689 as a result of the Stuarts’ abuses was by the time of the founding understood to be an individual right protecting against both public and private violence.

--------------



We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997), and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001), the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

--------

n Muscarello v. United States, 524 U. S. 125 (1998), in the course of analyzing the meaning of “carries a firearm” in a federal criminal statute, JUSTICE GINSBURG wrote that “urely a most familiar meaning is, as the Constitution’s Second Amendment . . . indicate: ‘wear, bear, or carry . . . upon the person or in the clothing or in a pocket, for the purpose . . . of being armed and ready for offensive or defensive action in a case of conflict with another person.’” I

---



3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment. The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense.

-----------




-------------

In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry ing a weapon in an organized military unit. Justice James Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing right, for example, as a recognition of the natural right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called the law of “self preservation.”




As the most important early American edition of Blackstone’s Commentaries (by the law professor and former Antifederalist St. George Tucker) made clear in the notes to the description of the arms right, Americans understood the “right of self-preservation” as permitting a citizen to “repe[l] force by force” when “the intervention of society in his behalf, may be too late to prevent an injury.”



-----------

There seems to us no doubt, on the basis of both text and history, that the Second Amendment conferred an individual right to keep and bear arms






--------






participation in a structured military organization. From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia.


And what about concealed and open carry?

From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that “bear arms” had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, “bear arms” was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to “bear arms in defense of themselves and the state” or “bear arms in defense of himself and the state.” 8 It is clear from those formulations that “bear arms” did not refer only to carry

-----
------

Page 19

c. Meaning of the Operative Clause. Putting all of these textual elements together, we find that they guarantee the individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Bullshit. Nobody is acting like that. People are acting as if guns have changed. Because they have.

The the People have a right to those guns because they have a right to self defense. That right means that the Public has at least, the very least, the same access to the same kinds of weapons criminals have.

Actually, the intent of the Founding Fathers was that the public have access to the same weapons as the government has, but costs being what they are, that's impossible.

"The the People have a right to those guns because they have a right to self defense"

Says you. And your psychic guess to the Founding fathers intent will be ignored.

They wrote down their intent...genius...

They wrote this down: "he intent of the Founding Fathers was that the public have access to the same weapons as the government has"....?

This is what you just claimed.

Okay, but I can't find evidence of this. will you now produce it?

No, you simply don't understand the document in question.

We don't get the right to bear arms from the government.

You mean, I don't attribute the same "I sorta, kinda feel this is what they meant" to it as you do.

 

[2aguy]

Democrats are acting like somehow since the Constitution was written, the right to self defense has changed. No it hasn't. If this joker wasn't so filthy rich, he would go into any drug store himself and see shelves of cough syrup.

Bullshit. Nobody is acting like that. People are acting as if guns have changed. Because they have.

Bullshit.

Guns are doing what guns have done since the invention of the gun.

You can start a new organization and call it
Body Counts Don`t Matter

We already have that....Planned Parenthood.....you guys love dead babies...they let you have sex with women and not have to worry about raising those children...you are the real ghouls....

 

[Marion Morrison]

I`m not a gun owner myself but is there anything to stop me from buying a dozen of these weapons that I don`t even know how to operate? I don`t have a criminal record.

Money, they're $1100 a pop. (That's for semi-auto)
You ready to pay $13,200?

Or you can get full-auto for $2100 a pop if you have a class III license and are an FFL.

For a cool $25,200.

http://www.gunbroker.com/item/706094875

 

[Darkwind]

The the People have a right to those guns because they have a right to self defense. That right means that the Public has at least, the very least, the same access to the same kinds of weapons criminals have.

Actually, the intent of the Founding Fathers was that the public have access to the same weapons as the government has, but costs being what they are, that's impossible.

"The the People have a right to those guns because they have a right to self defense"

Says you. And your psychic guess to the Founding fathers intent will be ignored.

They wrote down their intent...genius...

They wrote this down: "he intent of the Founding Fathers was that the public have access to the same weapons as the government has"....?

This is what you just claimed.

Okay, but I can't find evidence of this. will you now produce it?

No, you simply don't understand the document in question.

We don't get the right to bear arms from the government.

You mean, I don't attribute the same "I sorta, kinda feel this is what they meant" to it as you do.

Nope. It is well understood that the Bill of Rights is a limiting document against the government. It does take rights away from government since the government has no rights, it forbids the government from harming the rights of citizens. It is clear to anyone who can read and think.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

"The the People have a right to those guns because they have a right to self defense"

Says you. And your psychic guess to the Founding fathers intent will be ignored.

They wrote down their intent...genius...

They wrote this down: "he intent of the Founding Fathers was that the public have access to the same weapons as the government has"....?

This is what you just claimed.

Okay, but I can't find evidence of this. will you now produce it?

No, you simply don't understand the document in question.

We don't get the right to bear arms from the government.

You mean, I don't attribute the same "I sorta, kinda feel this is what they meant" to it as you do.

Nope. It is well understood that the Bill of Rights is a limiting document against the government. It does take rights away from government since the government has no rights, it forbids the government from harming the rights of citizens. It is clear to anyone who can read and think.

But your logic is stunted and dull. In fact, there is not much logic there at all. It was easily defeated when arguing for bans/limitations on fully automatic weapons and RPGs, for instance.

 

[Darkwind]

They wrote down their intent...genius...

They wrote this down: "he intent of the Founding Fathers was that the public have access to the same weapons as the government has"....?

This is what you just claimed.

Okay, but I can't find evidence of this. will you now produce it?

No, you simply don't understand the document in question.

We don't get the right to bear arms from the government.

You mean, I don't attribute the same "I sorta, kinda feel this is what they meant" to it as you do.

Nope. It is well understood that the Bill of Rights is a limiting document against the government. It does take rights away from government since the government has no rights, it forbids the government from harming the rights of citizens. It is clear to anyone who can read and think.

But your logic is stunted and dull. In fact, there is not much logic there at all. It was easily defeated when arguing for bans/limitations on fully automatic weapons and RPGs, for instance.

You don't understand logic then. Politicians cave to fear so that they can continue to be elected to their office does not equate to being having logic defeated.

It isn't that difficult to see why Congress is so corrupt, and why our Constitution is in such jeopardy.

Now, you've been shown that the SCOTUS has ruled that the government cannot take the right to bear arms away from the citizen, yet you continue to showcase your stupidity.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

They wrote this down: "he intent of the Founding Fathers was that the public have access to the same weapons as the government has"....?

This is what you just claimed.

Okay, but I can't find evidence of this. will you now produce it?

No, you simply don't understand the document in question.

We don't get the right to bear arms from the government.

You mean, I don't attribute the same "I sorta, kinda feel this is what they meant" to it as you do.

Nope. It is well understood that the Bill of Rights is a limiting document against the government. It does take rights away from government since the government has no rights, it forbids the government from harming the rights of citizens. It is clear to anyone who can read and think.

But your logic is stunted and dull. In fact, there is not much logic there at all. It was easily defeated when arguing for bans/limitations on fully automatic weapons and RPGs, for instance.

You don't understand logic then. Politicians cave to fear so that they can continue to be elected to their office does not equate to being having logic defeated.

It isn't that difficult to see why Congress is so corrupt, and why our Constitution is in such jeopardy.

Now, you've been shown that the SCOTUS has ruled that the government cannot take the right to bear arms away from the citizen, yet you continue to showcase your stupidity.

You aren't wielding any logic. you are only wielding authoritative declarations. No, it is clear that is is you who doe not understand the structure of logic, or what constitutes "an argument".

And yes, when laws are themselves tested in court, where arguments meet argument, logic is indeed defeated.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

I`m not a gun owner myself but is there anything to stop me from buying a dozen of these weapons that I don`t even know how to operate? I don`t have a criminal record.

Are you mentally competent? That might be the bigger issue for most liberals, since liberalism is a mental defect.

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No answer to my question in post #2. It`s a serious question.

I`m not a gun owner myself but is there anything to stop me from buying a dozen of these weapons that I don`t even know how to operate? I don`t have a criminal record.

NNNope! GOD BLESS AMERICA!

So you can`t answer a simple question that I asked? You seem to be a simple person.

Are you so incoherent that you cannot read his answer? He said "Nope". That means there is nothing to stop you.

 

[Skull Pilot]

I`m not a gun owner myself but is there anything to stop me from buying a dozen of these weapons that I don`t even know how to operate? I don`t have a criminal record.

If you don't have a criminal record why should you be stopped from buying firearms?

 

[Admiral Rockwell Tory]

No answer to my question in post #2. It`s a serious question.

I`m not a gun owner myself but is there anything to stop me from buying a dozen of these weapons that I don`t even know how to operate? I don`t have a criminal record.

NNNope! GOD BLESS AMERICA!

So you can`t answer a simple question that I asked? You seem to be a simple person.

I did answer your question fagatron. If you dont have a felony you can buy a dozen rifles of all colors and styles.There is nothing stopping you at all. But seeing as how you're probably a shitlib...I would stick to butt plugs if I were you.

So it really is easier to buy an assault rifle than cough medicine and Steve Schmidt was right. Why the fuck you`re bringing your gay fantasies here is puzzling though.

If you walk into a store to buy cough medicine, you walk to the counter, make your selection and then pay for it.

If you walk into a store, you will have to show identification, fill out a nice long form, wait for your background check to be run, and if approved, you might be able to pay for the gun and walk out. In some states there is a waiting period where you have to come back later to pick it up.

If you think the first process is harder than the second, I would suggest mental health counseling.

 

[Skull Pilot]

Democrats are acting like somehow since the Constitution was written, the right to self defense has changed. No it hasn't. If this joker wasn't so filthy rich, he would go into any drug store himself and see shelves of cough syrup.

Bullshit. Nobody is acting like that. People are acting as if guns have changed. Because they have.

The semiautomatic rifle has been around since the mid 1800's