CNN immediately claims Manhattan shooter was WHITE

No, the issue didn't come up because before that, the courts had ruled the government has the right to regulate gun ownership.

See US v Miller if you are still confused.
Heller did not take away the governments ability to regulate ownership. It just can't prevent the law abiding from bearing arms that are in "common use" outside of militia service for purposes such as self-defense.
 
Heller did not take away the governments ability to regulate ownership. It just can't prevent the law abiding from bearing arms that are in "common use" outside of militia service for purposes such as self-defense.

Heller was a shit decision that ignored decades of sensible precedents.



The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. - Warren Burger.
 
No one is going to die from getting a welfare check.

If I had to pee in a bottle to get a job, gun nuts can pee in a bottle to get a gun.
Except that "gun nuts" are not the ones doing the mass killings. Those are just plain nuts who would become "bomb nuts", or "knife nuts" if they didn't have guns. Why are you not yelling that car nuts need tighter restrictions because killers crash their cars into crowds of people to kill as many as possible?

I can require you to do the chicken dance before you enter my house. The government cannot require you to do the chicken dance before you exercise your 1st Amendment right and criticize the president. What's the difference? You don't have a constitutional right to enter my house, so I can put any requirement I want on you before you do. You DO, however, have a constitutional right to free speech and the government has to be very careful what it can require you to do before you exercise it.

In your case, you have no constitutional right to your job, so your boss can put whatever requirements on you he wants to (within labor law limits, obviously), but you DO have a right to a firearm, so the government is limited in what it can require you to do before you own one. Therefore, he can require you to pee in a bottle, but you can't require Jamal to pee in a bottle before he legally buys a gun.

I hope this clears things up in your mind, at least a little.
 
Heller was a shit decision that ignored decades of sensible precedents.



The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime. The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state. The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires. - Warren Burger.
Of course things that don't line up with your sensibilities are "shit". Nevertheless its settled now.


"The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires." - Warren Burger.

Heller doesn't guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any weapon they choose.
 
Of course things that don't line up with your sensibilities are "shit". Nevertheless its settled now.


"The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires." - Warren Burger.

Heller doesn't guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any weapon they choose.

That's the net effect, though, isn't it.

Uvalde, Stoneman High, Sandy Hook, VA Tech, Highland Park, Aurora,

People who had no business owning guns were able to get some serious hardware and kill a lot of people.
 
That's the net effect, though, isn't it.

Uvalde, Stoneman High, Sandy Hook, VA Tech, Highland Park, Aurora,

People who had no business owning guns were able to get some serious hardware and kill a lot of people.
Agreed. You certainly should not have anything more than a short plastic spoon either.
 
That's the net effect, though, isn't it.

Uvalde, Stoneman High, Sandy Hook, VA Tech, Highland Park, Aurora,

People who had no business owning guns were able to get some serious hardware and kill a lot of people.
We need to pass a law that a kid cant murder his mother and steal her guns.

We need to pass a law you cant straw purchase.
 
The very language of the Second Amendment refutes any argument that it was intended to guarantee every citizen an unfettered right to any kind of weapon he or she desires
The very language Burger uses refutes any claim that his argument could be made by using the actual language of the second amendment.
 
The real story here is that he had a history of mental health issues, and was still able to get a military grade weapon.

But let's not have that discussion.
Explain that to CNN.
 
The Gun Lobby’s interpretation of the Second Amendment is one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American People by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.
Of course he can get away with this claim when/while ignoring the constitutional fraud used to justify ROE as no one dare refer to the ACLU at the time as "a special interest group" for any/every white liberal cause to come down the pike, to find abortion in the constitution would take the work of both a lobby and a court, so technically Burger could get away with such an obvious misrepresentation implicit in his claim.
 
Last edited:
The real purpose of the Second Amendment was to ensure that state armies – the militia – would be maintained for the defense of the state.
I'm at a loss here to draw a parallel to the abortion amendment as I am having trouble locating it anywhere in the constitution without all the legal semantical gymnastics required to perpetrate it with the help of a willing court...
...btw, I believe the court argument in ROE v. WADE to be merely show for an already decided topic but I do prefer it as the law of the land, I just don't/won't pretend it was an honest decision.
 
Last edited:
15th post
"Possibly white". TRANSLATION: 'Hopefully white'.

Let's cut Erin some slack, we can only see his face, he could be 'mostly white', since we cannot see under his clothing. Oh, and since there was only one shooter, it was a 'mostly peaceful' shooting.
 
The founding fathers for some bizarre reason thought this would work -

"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".

And they got -

"A well crazy population, being necessary to the security of the worlds 17th free State, the right to shoot 40,000 a year by arming anyone with a pulse, shall not be infringed"
 
:rolleyes:


1754611268131.webp
 
Back
Top Bottom