Can Gun Nuts Please Stop Saying You Need Guns to Protect Yourself From A Potential Tyrannical Government!!!

[Dagosa]

We aren't talking about corporations, dumb ass, we're talking about the federal government denying free speech and you STILL have not provided an example.

Now it’s just the federal Govt. Moving the bar again. Local laws are enforceable if it’s supported by federally supported constitution. Try carrying a gun on federal lands in an unauthorized manner...
Try practicing hate speech anywhere. It’s a FEDERAL CRIME. Try carrying a full automatic firearm without the proper authorizations ANYWHERE. How many fking examples do you fking need. You guys are delusional and stupid. That’s a deadly combination if you want ensure being be loser.

 

[Dagosa]

You didn't answer the question: Is the Supreme Court infallible?

It’s a stupid question. You’re now moving the bar and thinking your opinion matters. It only matters at the ballot box.
YOU are delusional. It’s not up to you to make decisions on the Supreme Court. It’s up to you to VOTE in whether they do something you want. Their decisions are final. We decide nearly everything in public life by their interpretation. Being right or wrong is a value judgement. WE REGULATE EVERYONE OF YOUR RIGHTS WHETHER you agree or not. And you are crazy saying anything different.

 

[Dagosa]

I'm not wrong. End of story. People who enforce the Constitution are wrong when they are wrong. They are not always right. They are not infallible. They themselves have admitted they are sometimes wrong.

Are you the least bit embarrassed about posting such obviously wrong claims?

You live in a world of denial. You watch way too much Fix News. You aren’t even educated enough to understand something as basic as absolutism. None of your rights are absolute. Nada. And arguing they should be or even that they are in practice is stupid and illiterate.

 

[WinterBorn]

You really don’t get it do you ? The Govt decides who can posses firearms everywhere in the United States. Private business only limit free speech and firearm restrictions because it’s backed by THE GOVERNMENT. Private business don’t enforce regulating firearms on their property. The local police does. Why ? Because the SC in their interpretation of the constitution allows it EVERYWHERE IN THE UNITED STATES.

EVEN THE POLICE IF NOT ON DUTY IN AREN’T ALLOWED TO LEGALLY CARRY FIRE ARMS IN SCHOOLS, ON some PUBLIC PROPERTY etc. Stop trying to pretend we don’t regulate your rights EVERYWHERE ALREADY.
HOw oblivious can you deniers be. Moving the bar again ?

Please point out where I said the government cannot regulate firearms. You are arguing this point like I said different. Do try to actually read the comments you are responding to.

 

[bripat9643]

It’s a stupid question. You’re now moving the bar and thinking your opinion matters. It only matters at the ballot box.
YOU are delusional. It’s not up to you to make decisions on the Supreme Court. It’s up to you to VOTE in whether they do something you want. Their decisions are final. We decide nearly everything in public life by their interpretation. Being right or wrong is a value judgement. WE REGULATE EVERYONE OF YOUR RIGHTS WHETHER you agree or not. And you are crazy saying anything different.

Since you claim whatever the Supreme Court says is a fact, it is important. Your entire argument hinges on it. Now answer the question: Is the Supreme Court infallible

 

[Dagosa]

Since you claim whatever the Supreme Court says is a fact,

You’re a confused puppy. lawful decisions by the SC supports the actions of law enforcement and it’s prosecution by the judiciary whether its federal, state or local. The idea you’re now stating whether a decision is right or wrong is bullshit. The SC decides the legality…not “right or wrong”. Make those arguments with yourself.

 

[Dagosa]

Please point out where I said the government cannot regulate firearms. You are arguing this point like I said different. Do try to actually read the comments you are responding to.

Never said that. But regulation is supported by the SC whether it’s done in or at a private corporation, in public EVEN in your own home. It’s not limited to just federal buildings. There is not one square inch of territory in the USA, not subject to firearm regulations.

 

[Dagosa]

Please point out where I said the government cannot regulate firearms. You are arguing this point like I said different. Do try to actually read the comments you are responding to.

I’m saying that local, state and federal-authorities ENFORCE firearm regs ( and speech ) in public and private locations.

 

[bripat9643]

You’re a confused puppy. lawful decisions by the SC supports the actions of law enforcement and it’s prosecution by the judiciary whether its federal, state or local. The idea you’re now stating whether a decision is right or wrong is bullshit. The SC decides the legality…not “right or wrong”. Make those arguments with yourself.

So it doesn't matter whether it complies with what the Constitution actually says? The SC can just makeup the law as they go along?

 

[WinterBorn]

I’m saying that local, state and federal-authorities ENFORCE firearm regs ( and speech ) in public and private locations.

Then you are stating the obvious. But you did so in a reply to my comment, which had nothing to do with it.

The same SCOTUS that agrees the rights can be regulated, has also said that the freedom is an individual one, and not connected to service in any military.

 

[Dagosa]

So it doesn't matter whether it complies with what the Constitution actually says? The SC can just makeup the law as they go along?

Now you’re the Chief Justice giving directions to the rest ?
And the correct answer is ...yes, they comment on laws all the time. Then, we act accordingly

 

[Ralph Norton]

Look ignoramus, the SC court supports what corporations can do because it’s local, state and federal law enforce that will march in and enforce what you do on Private properties where your rights are regulated.
You’re watching way too much TV.

Oh, now it’s the federal Govt.
Geesus, how numb can you be. All state and local Govt are obliged to enforce federal fire arm and free speech laws. They are accountable for 12 year olds not selling schedule one drugs and carrying firearms and not acting like a-holes in public. Try parading around in the nude in public just to exercise your “free speech “ while carrying an automatic weapon. Then tell us all how you have unregulated rights....

And that, in your mind, is a rational and intelligent rebuttal to my comment?

 

[bripat9643]

Now you’re the Chief Justice giving directions to the rest ?
And the correct answer is ...yes, they comment on laws all the time. Then, we act accordingly

"They" meaning the SC? So their "comments" are meaningless? You just said they have the force of law.

You're contradicting yourself all over the place. That's what happens when you lack the capacity to commit logic.

 

[Dagosa]

Then you are stating the obvious. But you did so in a reply to my comment, which had nothing to do with it.

The same SCOTUS that agrees the rights can be regulated, has also said that the freedom is an individual one, and not connected to service in any military.

I’m commenting on your assertion that firearm regs posted in a public access business are adjudicated any differently then ANY FIREARM Reg that has been passed on and enforced by the federal, state and local govs.

That goes for military personnel or civilians. The only reason that private ownership and possession has needed to be delved into by the SC, is because there is so little direction given in 2@ of personal firearm ownership.

The constitution was written in a time when gun violence was not the issue it is now. Black powder Firearms were a necessary tool for survival and only for self defense reliably if used in a militia. THEY WERE NOT AS RELIABLE AS A GOOD BOW AND ARROW. Now they have capabilities that far surpassed what the founding fathers envisioned. The SC has rightfully seen for to keep reinforcing regulation of all firearms.

 

[Dagosa]

"They" meaning the SC? So their "comments" are meaningless? You just said they have the force of law.

You're contradicting yourself all over the place. That's what happens when you lack the capacity to commit logic.

Don’t keep making comments that are ignorant of constitutional framework. Their opinions are the necessary Frame work of governance.

 

[bripat9643]

I’m commenting on your assertion that firearm regs posted in a public access business are adjudicated any differently then ANY FIREARM Reg that has been passed on and enforced by the federal, state and local govs.

That goes for military personnel or civilians. The only reason that private ownership and possession has needed to be delved into by the SC, is because there is so little direction given in 2@ of personal firearm ownership.

You're dodging the issue, moron. According to you, it doesn't matter what the Constitution says.

The constitution was written in a time when gun violence was not the issue it is now. Black powder Firearms were a necessary tool for survival and only for self defense reliably if used in a militia. THEY WERE NOT AS RELIABLE AS A GOOD BOW AND ARROW. Now they have capabilities that far surpassed what the founding fathers envisioned. The SC has rightfully seen for to keep reinforcing regulation of all firearms.

So you are once again saying the SC can decide whatever it likes. It can totally ignore the Constitution.

 

[bripat9643]

Don’t keep making comments that are ignorant of constitutional framework. Their opinions are the necessary Frame work of governance.

Does it matter what the Constitution says? Answer the question.

 

[Dagosa]

And that, in your mind, is a rational and intelligent rebuttal to my comment?

Of course. You’re the dumb ass you can’t think of one instance where the federal gov, which is another red herring, has regulated free speech. We have an entire federal agency whose sole job is the “regulate“ your free speech. And, you can’t even think of it. Amazing

 

[Dagosa]

Does it matter what the Constitution says?

More made up shit. I don’t live in your made up shit world. You’re an irrational fool.

 

[Ralph Norton]

Of course. You’re the dumb ass you can’t think of one instance where the federal gov, which is another red herring, has regulated free speech. We have an entire federal agency whose sole job is the regulate free speech. And, you can’t even think of it. Amazing

Why don't you humor me and tell me? You know, prove to everyone just how brilliant you are.