The Right To Bear Arms

[P@triot]

Further proof that gun bans work.

Further proof that you are completely uninformed because you swallow propaganda...

New analysis on gun control shows increased gun restrictions have very minimal desirable effects

 

[P@triot]

If Jesus carried a gun, the gospel would be meaningless.

"But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right. cheek, turn to him the other also."
Mathew 5:38

have the Evangelicals heard of this ?

Suddenly the atheists have “found” God, uh?

 

[Flopper]

You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution

The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.

So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..

And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course

/----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

 

[P@triot]

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Like all anti-constitutional, anti-liberty nuts, you just can’t stand to accept that the 2nd Amendment clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

The right does not belong to the militia. It belongs to the people.

 

[frigidweirdo]

You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution

The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.

So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..

And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course

/----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Well.... that's stretching things a little far.

The whole point of militias is that they're needed when things have really hit the fan. If things haven't hit the fan, and you say they're not necessary because things haven't hit the fan, then you've got a real problem.

 

[Cellblock2429]

You are posting to mindless Right wing twits ...they seem to be all over this site LOL ....denying me a fifty caliber is against the Constitution

The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.

So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..

And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course

/----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

/——-/ I’ve quoted Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd Amendment. And please note the little comma following State. It’s a substitute for and. Two things, the militia AND the right of the people to bear arms. Get it????

 

[Flopper]

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Like all anti-constitutional, anti-liberty nuts, you just can’t stand to accept that the 2nd Amendment clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

The right does not belong to the militia. It belongs to the people.

Again, you are taking the phrase out of context. The militias being necessary for security gives reason for the right to bear arms. Without that reason, there is no justification for the right. Today we have large standing armies that provide security, not militias.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Like all anti-constitutional, anti-liberty nuts, you just can’t stand to accept that the 2nd Amendment clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

The right does not belong to the militia. It belongs to the people.

Again, you are taking the phrase out of context. The militias being necessary for security gives reason for the right to bear arms. Without that reason, there is no justification for the right. Today we have large standing armies that provide security, not militias.

/----/ James Madison did not propose to place the second amendment in that part of the Constitution that governs Congress’s power over the militia. The obvious reason is that Madison was seeking to protect an individual right to keep and bear arms, not some undefined right of the states to arm or control militia members within their borders. Indeed, it was Madison himself who coined the phrase “Bill of Rights” to refer to the amendments he was proposing, including what would become the second amendment. States do not have rights. They have powers. Individuals have rights. In any event, the second amendment guarantees in its own words a right of the people, not a right of the states.
Madison on the 2nd Amendment & milita clause | Human Events

 

[Cecilie1200]

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Like all anti-constitutional, anti-liberty nuts, you just can’t stand to accept that the 2nd Amendment clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

The right does not belong to the militia. It belongs to the people.

Again, you are taking the phrase out of context. The militias being necessary for security gives reason for the right to bear arms. Without that reason, there is no justification for the right. Today we have large standing armies that provide security, not militias.

There are many justifications for that right. Simply because the Founders chose to articulate THAT one, at THAT time, doesn't mean they didn't recognize that there were others.

Besides, the "large standing armies" don't provide the same sort of defense the militia does.

 

[Flopper]

The deplorable gun fanatics are a bit inconsistent, either you take the sacred constitution literally or you don't.

So if you can carry a fifty caliber you should have the right to own one..

And you must become part of a well regulated militia of course

/----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

/——-/ I’ve quoted Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd Amendment. And please note the little comma following State. It’s a substitute for and. Two things, the militia AND the right of the people to bear arms. Get it????

There is no way, the founders would put "and" in place of the comma because that would imply that the states could not infringe upon a militia. Also it would be grammatically incorrect.

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

/——-/ I’ve quoted Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd Amendment. And please note the little comma following State. It’s a substitute for and. Two things, the militia AND the right of the people to bear arms. Get it????

There is no way, the founders would put "and" in place of the comma because that would imply that the states could not infringe upon a militia. Also it would be grammatically incorrect.

/-----/ What did the comma stand for if not AND?
Use a comma after the first independent clause when you link two independent clauses with one of the following coordinating conjunctions: and, but, for, or, nor, so, yet. For example: I am going home, and I intend to stay there.
Commas: Quick Rules - the Purdue University Online Writing Lab

 

[Skull Pilot]

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Like all anti-constitutional, anti-liberty nuts, you just can’t stand to accept that the 2nd Amendment clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

The right does not belong to the militia. It belongs to the people.

Again, you are taking the phrase out of context. The militias being necessary for security gives reason for the right to bear arms. Without that reason, there is no justification for the right. Today we have large standing armies that provide security, not militias.

So the army is providing security for your home and family now?

 

[Cellblock2429]

/----/ Ahhhh, the first straw man argument of the day.
View attachment 180027

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

/——-/ I’ve quoted Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd Amendment. And please note the little comma following State. It’s a substitute for and. Two things, the militia AND the right of the people to bear arms. Get it????

There is no way, the founders would put "and" in place of the comma because that would imply that the states could not infringe upon a militia. Also it would be grammatically incorrect.

/----/ Another source on the use of commas in the Bill of rights
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That little, red comma caused the Supreme Court to strike down D.C.'s ban on handguns, the country's strictest gun control law to date.

Before the Supreme Court heard the case, the D.C. circuit court of appeals nixed the ban, too. "According to the court, the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' On this reading, the bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,'" The New York Times reported.

 

[Flopper]

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

Like all anti-constitutional, anti-liberty nuts, you just can’t stand to accept that the 2nd Amendment clearly states “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed”.

The right does not belong to the militia. It belongs to the people.

Again, you are taking the phrase out of context. The militias being necessary for security gives reason for the right to bear arms. Without that reason, there is no justification for the right. Today we have large standing armies that provide security, not militias.

There are many justifications for that right. Simply because the Founders chose to articulate THAT one, at THAT time, doesn't mean they didn't recognize that there were others.

Besides, the "large standing armies" don't provide the same sort of defense the militia does.

I thought conservatives insisted on a literal interpretation of the constitution.

The real justification for bearing arms today is not to prevent government tyranny or support local militias. I doubt that there is a single politician in Washington who believes that the people will gather in the town square with pitchforks and guns and storm the capital if the government does not act in their interest. In regard to militias, less than 1% of gun owners are member of any militia. It's also pretty obvious that militias are not needed to secure the nation. No, today the primary justification for the right to bear arms is to protect one's self from others who are excising that right.

 

[Flopper]

The founders state in the amendment their reason for the right. Supporters of the amendment prefer to ignore their reason. If you actually take the time to read the amendment, instead of just focusing on the last phrase you will see that the founder's reason is no longer valid today. It would take a real nut case to believe the security of this nation doesn't rest with military but rather regulated militias that hardly even exist. At the time the 2nd amendment was written, the founders believed that regulated part time citizen militias composed of all citizens with firearms was necessary for the security of the state and thus the people must have the right to bear arms otherwise there could be no militias.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

/----/ Nice try Gun Grabber. But I take the words of our Founding Fathers over yours any day of the week:

James Madison, author of the 2nd Amendment, Federalist Papers, #46, 1788

Madison clearly states what a militia is and what its purpose is; to counter the federal government. The anti-gun folks pretend this and other documents don’t exist. They wish.

No free man shall ever be debarred the use of arms.

Thomas Jefferson, proposal to the Virginia Constitution.

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom in Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of troops, that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States”

Noah Webster, 1787

Like most gun nuts, you just can't stand to quote the whole 2nd amendment, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You would have to be a little nuts to believe militias are necessary to the security of the nation today and it the militias aren't needed then there is no constitutional bases for the right to bear arms.

/——-/ I’ve quoted Madison, the guy who wrote the 2nd Amendment. And please note the little comma following State. It’s a substitute for and. Two things, the militia AND the right of the people to bear arms. Get it????

There is no way, the founders would put "and" in place of the comma because that would imply that the states could not infringe upon a militia. Also it would be grammatically incorrect.

/----/ Another source on the use of commas in the Bill of rights
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

That little, red comma caused the Supreme Court to strike down D.C.'s ban on handguns, the country's strictest gun control law to date.

Before the Supreme Court heard the case, the D.C. circuit court of appeals nixed the ban, too. "According to the court, the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' On this reading, the bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don't really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,'" The New York Times reported.

The first clause is a prefatory clause that gives reason for the second clause. The court disregarded it simply because reason is more the concern of congress than the courts, although the courts have certainly considered a prefatory clause in the past. In other words, it's up to congress to determine if the reason is still valid today, which of course it isn't. Courts have gone both ways on this but considering the controversial nature of the case, I'm certainly not surprised by the ruling.

 

[P@triot]

Once again - we see that the views of a violent, oppressive dictator who refers to himself as “The Supreme Leader” perfectly aligns with the views of the left (just like they did with Fidel Castro, Joseph Stalin, Adolf Hitler, etc.).

Sayyid Ali Hosseini Khamenei, the Supreme Leader of Iran, is applauding the notion of a disarmed American citizenry.

It says everything that America’s enemies applaud and support the left’s policies.

Iran Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei applauds the idea of guns being banned in US

 

[P@triot]

We’ve done it the failed left-wing way for almost 3 decades now. It’s time we ignore the ignorant and immature idealists and instead start listening to the experts...

Schmidt began by pointing out that just a few decades ago, many high school students would have a hunting rifle in their vehicle in the school parking lot.

When you create victim zones, you will get victims.

Wisconsin sheriff pens viral letter addressing the ‘root cause’ behind Parkland shooting

 

[P@triot]

We’ve done it the failed left-wing way for almost 3 decades now. It’s time we ignore the ignorant and immature idealists and instead start listening to the experts...

The Crime Prevention Research Center found that from the 1950s through July 10, 2016, 98.4% of mass shootings have happened in gun-free zones, The Blaze reported.

When you create victim zones, you will get victims. The left has caused the unnecessary death of hundreds of children. This is an easy problem to solve that doesn’t require tyranny or the shredding of the U.S. Constitution. It just requires us to do what all successful solutions do - ignore the left.

Lawmaker Says Repealing Gun-Free Zone Act Would Make Schools Safer

 

[P@triot]

Despite the absolute best efforts by the left and their media....

Most Americans blame the shooting on failures by the local, state and federal governments, according to a Rasmussen Reports study. The study was done in response to the Valentine’s Day shooting that left 17 people dead at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida.

The American people refuse to accept the propaganda, refuse to turn on the U.S. Constitution, and refuse to surrender liberty. Failed left-wing policy caused the problem and then the left attempted to exploit it for power and control. As always, they failed.

Study shows most Americans blame government mistakes, not guns, for Florida shooting

 

[P@triot]

Boom! A knockout blow to the left...

Because when the policies fail to produce the results you are promising to your constituents, you’ll be back with more reasons on why we’ve gotta infringe on 2nd Amendment rights

This is what failed left-wing policy has been doing for the past 118 years. Every time it fails, the left screams that we just didn’t do enough of it and then they demand that more government control and less liberty will solve the problem this time.