Sandy Hook families can sue gun manufacturers.

[Faun]

Why, because the Supreme Court it infallible? Where does the 2nd Amendment say it's OK to ban certain kinds of weapons?

******* moron, all it says is we have the right to bear arms. It's doesn't mean any arms you want. Trying obtaining a nuclear device. See what happens to you when you get caught.

 

[Faun]

Ye, but then whenever asked to prove your claim is constitutional, you do nothing but cite the Supreme Court over and over.

Because they are the leading authority on what is and is not constitutional. I couldn't care less that bothers you.

 

[Faun]

And you're not the arbitrator of who needs what to defend their home. It just doesn't matter if a black scary looking gun can be outlawed.

I'm referencing the laws which have been upheld. You're referencing nothing.

 

[bripat9643]

******* moron, all it says is we have the right to bear arms. It's doesn't mean any arms you want. Trying obtaining a nuclear device. See what happens to you when you get caught.

Sure it does. What part of "shall no be abridged" don't you understand?

Whether the government has made something illegal doesn't mean it followed the Constitution.

 

[Faun]

It may be what the government can legally enforce, but that doesn't make it constitutional in any absolute sense. No one is talking about how the government functions. The government is strictly dysfunctional, so that discussion is a total red herring.

LOL

Of course, you would prefer a complete ******* moron like you to be the decider of what is and what is not constitutional. No one cares what a ******* moron like you thinks is not constitutional. It's why you are a ******* moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Because they are the leading authority on what is and is not constitutional. I couldn't care less that bothers you.

Appeal to authority: a logical fallacy.

You're admitting that no one should believe a thing you say.

 

[Faun]

Sure it does. What part of "shall no be abridged" don't you understand?

Whether the government has made something illegal doesn't mean it followed the Constitution.

Again, ******* moron, it doesn't define what is "arms." For that, the Supreme Court has to decide. Which they did. Your lack of understanding not withstanding.

 

[Faun]

Appeal to authority: a logical fallacy.

You're admitting that no one should believe a thing you say.

LOL

Cries a ******* moron.

 

[bripat9643]

Again, ******* moron, it doesn't define what is "arms." For that, the Supreme Court has to decide. Which they did. Your lack of understanding not withstanding.

A sawed off shotgun is clearly an "arm." The SC decided wrong.

 

[hadit]

I'm referencing the laws which have been upheld. You're referencing nothing.

Well, I am referencing your opinion, so okay.

 

[Faun]

A sawed off shotgun is clearly an "arm." The SC decided wrong.

******* moron, it says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms. You can be banned from owning certain arms while at the same time, you're not banned from arming yourself. Again, a nuclear bomb constitutes "arms." You're batshit crazy to think it's constitutional to be in possession of a nuclear bomb in America.

 

[Faun]

Well, I am referencing your opinion, so okay.

It's not my opinion the Supreme Court upheld banning certain types of guns. Nor is I my opinion that the government already banned a bunch of guns in 1994 which was successfully defended against legal objections.

So no, it's not my opinion you have a problem with; it's reality with which you struggle.

 

[M14 Shooter]

It's not my opinion the Supreme Court upheld banning certain types of guns.

Correct. It's a lie.
No such ban has been upheld by the USSC.

 

[Faun]

Correct. It's a lie.
No such ban has been upheld by the USSC.

United States v. Miller

 

[M14 Shooter]

United States v. Miller

Please copy and paste the text from the holding where the USSC upheld a ban on... anything.

 

[Faun]

Please copy and paste the text from the holding where the USSC upheld a ban on... anything.

I already gave you the case where they ruled sawed off shotguns can be constitutionally banned.

 

[M14 Shooter]

I already gave you the case where they ruled sawed off shotguns can be constitutionally banned.

Nothing in Miller upholds a ban on sawed-off shotguns, or any other weapon.
Disagree?
Copy and paste the text from ruling to that effect.

 

[Faun]

Nothing in Miller upholds a ban on sawed-off shotguns, or any other weapon.
Disagree?
Copy and paste the text from ruling to that effect.

Of course I disagree. The Supreme Court upheld the National Firearms Act of 1934 as they ruled sawed off shotguns are not protected by the 2nd Amendment.

 

[bripat9643]

******* moron, it says you have the right to bear arms. It doesn't say what arms. You can be banned from owning certain arms while at the same time, you're not banned from arming yourself. Again, a nuclear bomb constitutes "arms." You're batshit crazy to think it's constitutional to be in possession of a nuclear bomb in America.

What part of "shall not be abridged" didn't you understand? When the Amendment was approved, there were no classes of firearms not covered.

Yes, nuclear arms are covered by the 2nd amendment, However, it would be impossible for any private citizen to get their hands on one.

 

[bripat9643]

It's not my opinion the Supreme Court upheld banning certain types of guns. Nor is I my opinion that the government already banned a bunch of guns in 1994 which was successfully defended against legal objections.

So no, it's not my opinion you have a problem with; it's reality with which you struggle.

It's your opinion that any of that is constitutional. Your argument is simply that the SC is the final authority on what the Constitution means. That's the attitude of a groveling bootlicker.