Poll: Should the Govt provide every American with free guns?

[Vandalshandle]

Since the Dimsocialists have invented the right to free healthcare out of thin air, and claim the govt has to provide it to all Americans, it seems reasonable that the REAL RIGHT to bear arms, which is actually in the Constitution, requires the govt to provide those arms free of charge to every American.

Let’s see if there are any non-hypocritical Dimsocialists on the board.

Free health care? Maybe you need to have your hearing aid serviced. No candidate is advocating free health care. On the other hand, there are supporters for Medicare for all, which I presently enjoy after paying for it for 50 years.

 

[Nostra]

Since the Dimsocialists have invented the right to free healthcare out of thin air, and claim the govt has to provide it to all Americans, it seems reasonable that the REAL RIGHT to bear arms, which is actually in the Constitution, requires the govt to provide those arms free of charge to every American.

Let’s see if there are any non-hypocritical Dimsocialists on the board.

Free health care? Maybe you need to have your hearing aid serviced. No candidate is advocating free health care. On the other hand, there are supporters for Medicare for all, which I presently enjoy after paying for it for 50 years.

Fauxcohontas says she is paying for her healthcare plan with a wealth tax so she can give free healthcare to everyone else.

You really should educate yourself before jumping into a thread and humiliating yourself by exposing your ignorance.

 

[Rye Catcher]

healthcare = helps people get better
firearms= designed to kill
I see a slight difference

Healthcare =Not in the Constitution

Firearms = Specifically outlined in the Constitution

1. Constitution can be interpreted many ways
2. writers of the Constitution thought slavery was ok and women shouldn't vote
3. free firearms= not in the Constitution
4. semi-auto weapons = not in the Constitution
etc to infinity

the constitution is written in clear language and not up for interpretation,,,

and NO the founders didnt think slavery was OK most thought it was NOT OK and wanted it abolished but there were a few that wanted it,,,

and if you will read the 2nd no where does it say anything about types of arms or guns,,it was meant that the people be equally as armed as any threat including our own government,,,

you should educate yourself before speaking in public,,,

Statement: "the constitution is written in clear language and not up for interpretation,,,"

Response: LOL

Explain why are so many Supreme Court Decisions not unanimous?

Explain the clarity in:

• Elastic Clause / Necessary and Proper
• The syntax in the 2nd A.
• The "common Defence"
• "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
• The "general Welfare"

 

[DrLove]

Since the Dimsocialists have invented the right to free healthcare out of thin air, and claim the govt has to provide it to all Americans, it seems reasonable that the REAL RIGHT to bear arms, which is actually in the Constitution, requires the govt to provide those arms free of charge to every American.

Let’s see if there are any non-hypocritical Dimsocialists on the board.

Reading this ^ just caused a few million of my brain cells to spontaneously combust.

Jesus, I have toenails to trim. That will help them to grow back. Tripe like this will fry millions more.

 

[progressive hunter]

healthcare = helps people get better
firearms= designed to kill
I see a slight difference

Healthcare =Not in the Constitution

Firearms = Specifically outlined in the Constitution

1. Constitution can be interpreted many ways
2. writers of the Constitution thought slavery was ok and women shouldn't vote
3. free firearms= not in the Constitution
4. semi-auto weapons = not in the Constitution
etc to infinity

the constitution is written in clear language and not up for interpretation,,,

and NO the founders didnt think slavery was OK most thought it was NOT OK and wanted it abolished but there were a few that wanted it,,,

and if you will read the 2nd no where does it say anything about types of arms or guns,,it was meant that the people be equally as armed as any threat including our own government,,,

you should educate yourself before speaking in public,,,

Statement: "the constitution is written in clear language and not up for interpretation,,,"

Response: LOL

Explain why are so many Supreme Court Decisions not unanimous?

Explain the clarity in:

• Elastic Clause / Necessary and Proper
• The syntax in the 2nd A.
• The "common Defence"
• "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"
• The "general Welfare"

the 2nd is a stand alone right and not subject to anything else,,

and we have over 100yrs of history proving scalia wrong,,,

 

[daveman]

The second amendment is my license. Stupid commie.

"The second amendment is my license. Stupid commie."


is it?

who are you that you don't need to show any ID when buying a a gun....

how do I know you really ARE an American citizen with 2nd amendment rights?

you could be an islamic terrorist trying to buy weapons so you can kill REAL Americans...

sorry...

before i will concede you your 2nd amendment rights we are going to have to do a background check to PROVE you REALLY ARE an American.

An American, not a liberal commie scumbag like you.

You'll need a background check to prove

1. you are not a violent criminal
2. you are not a terrorist
3. you are a REAL American

Oh, then you're cool with Voter ID, so people have to prove they're real Americans?

It's not likely someone who casts a vote illegally kills another with that vote.

It's not likely anyone owning a gun legally kills another with that gun.

I know this is hard for you to accept -- your programming has been very successful -- but 99.99+% of legal gun owners didn't murder anyone yesterday.

All your unoriginal ideas for "gun control" do nothing about criminals. You don't actually care about criminals killing people.

No, you want law-abiding people disarmed so they can't resist leftist tyranny.

But your programming won't let you see that.

 

[daveman]

Oh, then you're cool with Voter ID, so people have to prove they're real Americans?

yes
when buying guns

but not when buying pizza

Man, you fucked up the formatting.

Nobody said anything about pizza. Why are you okay with letting non-citizens vote?

Note that I know the answer. I want to hear what you think you know, though.

 

[daveman]

The only free shit the government should give to people is ....um.....wait.....eventually I will think of something...hmmm...

It costs $0.00 to leave me the hell alone.

you'll still need a background check when buying weapons.

I don't want TERRORISTS or CRIMINALS buying guns

do you?

We have background checks now. Why do you idiots pretend we don't?

 

[daveman]

Poll: Should the Govt provide every American with free guns?

Since the Dimsocialists have invented the right to free healthcare out of thin air, and claim the govt has to provide it to all Americans, it seems reasonable that the REAL RIGHT to bear arms, which is actually in the Constitution, requires the govt to provide those arms free of charge to every American.

Let’s see if there are any non-hypocritical Dimsocialists on the board.

Voted no. Government should not be the source
of free anything.

"
Voted no. Government should not be the source
of free anything"

so....no more public roads?

no more police department?

(criminals will like that! are YOU a criminal?)

no more fire department

no more military to keep the iranians or the north koreans or the chinese or russians off our property.....

People pay taxes for all that stuff.

That means they're not free.

 

[dblack]

Since the Dimsocialists have invented the right to free healthcare out of thin air, and claim the govt has to provide it to all Americans, it seems reasonable that the REAL RIGHT to bear arms, which is actually in the Constitution, requires the govt to provide those arms free of charge to every American.

Let’s see if there are any non-hypocritical Dimsocialists on the board.

Like I told the lat person who started a thread like this (there are several a month), give in on healthcare, food, housing, etc. And we'll give you guns.

"... we'll give you guns"?

I love the statist presumption.

 

[daveman]

healthcare = helps people get better
firearms= designed to kill
I see a slight difference

Given there are far more defensive gun uses than murders committed with guns, firearms do save lives.

 

[2aguy]

healthcare = helps people get better
firearms= designed to kill
I see a slight difference

Healthcare =Not in the Constitution

Firearms = Specifically outlined in the Constitution

1. Constitution can be interpreted many ways
2. writers of the Constitution thought slavery was ok and women shouldn't vote
3. free firearms= not in the Constitution
4. semi-auto weapons = not in the Constitution
etc to infinity

The Writers of the Constitution did not think slavery was okay, that is why it isn't in the Constitution, and they ended the slave trade.......

And you are wrong on semi-auto weapons as well...no surprise there...

From our Supreme Court....

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment.

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.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf
That analysis misreads Heller. The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.

 

[daveman]

There shouldn't be a universal background check.......there is no reason for one other than as a precursor to demanding universal gun registration.

Raise your hand if you support universal gun registration!

 

[daveman]

healthcare = helps people get better
firearms= designed to kill
I see a slight difference

Guns save lives......

Americans use their guns more often to save lives than take them........1.1 million times a year according to the CDC.

1. we've been over your bullshit a million times already
2. UNDENIABLE-firearms designed to kill --only

Stamping your feet and pouting are not credible refutations.

 

[2aguy]

healthcare = helps people get better
firearms= designed to kill
I see a slight difference

Healthcare =Not in the Constitution

Firearms = Specifically outlined in the Constitution

"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."
​

These 52 words provide a Vision Statement for the future, and a Mission Statement for our elected officials.

However, Healthcare is not included specifically in Art. I, Sec. 8, as the concrete and ignorant comment to which I am responding asserted:

The facts are, clause 1 ("provide for the common Defence and general Welfare") and clause 18 (The Necessary and Proper Clause) have been decided by the Supreme Court for the Federal Government establish healthcare as a Right (Medicare, Medicaid, The PPACA) and are Constitutional.

In fact, a clear reading of Scalia's Decision in Heller, he wrote that certain people do not have the Right to own, possess or have in their custody or control a firearm.

The easily drawn inference is that "certain people" cannot be discovered until they use a firearm wrongly, and thus any law under Heller which provides for background checks is Constitutional.

Wrong..... it doesn't do anything even close to that. In fact....in Haynes v United States, it was ruled unConstitutional to force a convicted felon to register their illegal guns....since it violated their 5th Amendment Right against self incrimination...

So....a criminal background check would be a violation of the 5th Amendment ........

 

[daveman]

healthcare = helps people get better
firearms= designed to kill
I see a slight difference

Guns save lives......

Americans use their guns more often to save lives than take them........1.1 million times a year according to the CDC.

1. we've been over your bullshit a million times already
2. UNDENIABLE-firearms designed to kill --only

designed to kill bad guys,,,so by doing that they save more lives than they take,,,

Here......someone runs the numbers....

Gun murder in 2019...10,265....

Lives saved on average.... 176,000 from rape, robbery and murder, kidnapping.....etc....

Case Closed: Kleck Is Still Correct


that makes for at least 176,000 lives saved—less some attackers who lost their lives to defenders. This enormous benefit dwarfs, both in human and economic terms, the losses trumpeted by hoplophobes who only choose to see the risk side of the equation.




==============
Annual Defensive Gun Use Savings Dwarf Study's "Gun Violence" Costs - The Truth About Guns

I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.
--------
It’s one of the antis’ favorite tricks: cost benefit analysis omitting the benefit side of the equation. So what are the financial benefits of firearm ownership to society? Read on . . .
In my post Dennis Henigan on Chardon: Clockwork Edition, I did an analysis of how many lives were saved annually in Defensive Gun Uses (DGUs). I used extremely conservative numbers. Now I am going to use some less conservative ones.
--------------
How can we get a dollar figure from 1.88 million defensive gun uses per year? Never fear, faithful reader, we can count on the .gov to calculate everything.
According to the AZ state government, in February of 2008 a human life was worth $6.5 million. Going to the Inflation Calculator and punching in the numbers gives us a present value of $6.93 million.
So figuring that the average DGU saves one half of a person’s life—as “gun violence” predominantly affects younger demographics—that gives us $3.465 million per half life.
Putting this all together, we find that the monetary benefit of guns (by way of DGUs) is roughly $1.02 trillion per year. That’s trillion. With a ‘T’.
I was going to go on and calculate the costs of incarceration ($50K/year) saved by people killing 1527 criminals annually, and then look at the lifetime cost to society of an average criminal (something in excess of $1 million). But all of that would be a drop in the bucket compared to the $1,000,000,000,000 ($1T) annual benefit of gun ownership.
When compared to the (inflation adjusted from 2002) $127.5 billion ‘cost’ of gun violence calculated by by our Ludwig-Cook buddies, guns save a little more than eight times what they “cost.”
Which, I might add, is completely irrelevant since “the freedom to own and carry the weapon of your choice is a natural, fundamental, and inalienable human, individual, civil, and Constitutional right — subject neither to the democratic process nor to arguments grounded in social utility.”
So even taking Motherboard’s own total and multiplying it by 100, the benefits to society of civilian gun ownership dwarf the associated costs.

Leftists don't actually give a shit about victims of gun crime.

They just want people disarmed against leftist totalitarianism.

 

[Crepitus]

Since the Dimsocialists have invented the right to free healthcare out of thin air, and claim the govt has to provide it to all Americans, it seems reasonable that the REAL RIGHT to bear arms, which is actually in the Constitution, requires the govt to provide those arms free of charge to every American.

Let’s see if there are any non-hypocritical Dimsocialists on the board.

Like I told the lat person who started a thread like this (there are several a month), give in on healthcare, food, housing, etc. And we'll give you guns.

"... we'll give you guns"?

I love the statist presumption.

Read the OP. Dude is asking for free guns.

Reading the OP prevents you from being stupider than you have to be.

 

[dblack]

Since the Dimsocialists have invented the right to free healthcare out of thin air, and claim the govt has to provide it to all Americans, it seems reasonable that the REAL RIGHT to bear arms, which is actually in the Constitution, requires the govt to provide those arms free of charge to every American.

Let’s see if there are any non-hypocritical Dimsocialists on the board.

Like I told the lat person who started a thread like this (there are several a month), give in on healthcare, food, housing, etc. And we'll give you guns.

"... we'll give you guns"?

I love the statist presumption.

Read the OP. Dude is asking for free guns.

Reading the OP prevents you from being stupider than you have to be.

Reading with some understanding of context and sarcasm works even better. Give it a try!

 

[Nostra]

Since the Dimsocialists have invented the right to free healthcare out of thin air, and claim the govt has to provide it to all Americans, it seems reasonable that the REAL RIGHT to bear arms, which is actually in the Constitution, requires the govt to provide those arms free of charge to every American.

Let’s see if there are any non-hypocritical Dimsocialists on the board.

Like I told the lat person who started a thread like this (there are several a month), give in on healthcare, food, housing, etc. And we'll give you guns.

"... we'll give you guns"?

I love the statist presumption.

Read the OP. Dude is asking for free guns.

Reading the OP prevents you from being stupider than you have to be.

OP flew over your flat head.

what are the odds?

 

[daveman]

Since the Dimsocialists have invented the right to free healthcare out of thin air, and claim the govt has to provide it to all Americans, it seems reasonable that the REAL RIGHT to bear arms, which is actually in the Constitution, requires the govt to provide those arms free of charge to every American.

Let’s see if there are any non-hypocritical Dimsocialists on the board.

Like I told the lat person who started a thread like this (there are several a month), give in on healthcare, food, housing, etc. And we'll give you guns.

"... we'll give you guns"?

I love the statist presumption.

Read the OP. Dude is asking for free guns.

Reading the OP prevents you from being stupider than you have to be.

OP is mocking leftists and their "everything I want is a human right and the government should force other people to pay for it for me" mindset.