What's new
US Message Board 🦅 Political Discussion Forum

Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

Supreme Court Strikes Down Blatently Unconstitional Gun Regulation

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
104,836
Reaction score
50,854
Points
2,330
Yeah he's full of it, so I'm not sure about this poster. He might be trolling for the sake of argument, and if he keeps it up he will be reported.
Hope gets hit by lightening.
 

woodwork201

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
4,284
Reaction score
2,647
Points
1,938
Your attitude on just allowing what doesn't work to keep on growing without checking the situations is about as idiot or stupid as it gets. No one is advocating the restrictions on guns from law abiding citizen's, well at least not in my area of the nation we aren't.......

Your emotional Karen bull crap isn't fooling anyone, and sticking with the status quo of not dealing with criminal's with gun's no matter how many die isn't going to cut it for the responsible gun owner community. It has to be turned around, but I understand your fear on who is running the country right now. I'm definitely with you that they couldn't run a lemonade stand, and we sure don't need them changing our gun law's that are already in place.

Now hear me good you emotional hack, I am in favor of strong background checks not red flag law's, and I'm in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of known or found to be criminal's through the background checks, but I'm not in favor of taking guns from law abiding citizen's, otherwise I'm against making it hard on law abiding citizen's to own and have the gun's of their choosing.

I'm for proper storage that keep people from easy access to guns during a break in, otherwise to one's home or automobile where a gun might be hap-hazzardly stored. I'm for common sense being shown by those owning weapon's for example: not bragging about them, not showing them off as if that makes them look tough or something to their friends or neighbors, and not discharging them in communities in hopes to send messages that hey I'm armed, so don't mess with me. That's just an advertisement to say hey I got gun's, so come see if you can get them. I'm big time in favor of concealed carry, not open carry because like I said that's just an advertisement to a criminal that you are armed in which tells the criminal how to counter that carry if need be.

Intimidation doesn't work on criminal's these days. They are a different Godless breed hell bent on shoving every good that we ever believed in down our throats like a bitter pill. So we must adapt to keep our ways of life intact. If they pull this, then we counter with that, but to sit there and do nothing or rather if we don't meet them on the battlefield of wit's, then it is a fool's game that we are playing.

So you're in favor of gun control that doesn't work to keep law breakers from having guns but might keep law abiding from having guns. You're in favor of gun registration which allows the government to get the guns, as historically proven many times.

You're in favor of what you consider to be reasonable gun control - all of which has been absolutely proven to NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Wonder why that is? It's because they're criminals; they don't care about the law. Why are you too dense to understand that? Were you dropped on the head as a child? Got too close to the batter in a baseball game? What happened?

Your suggestion of adapting to the times to keep the criminals at bay apparently includes not following the Constitution. When you agree that the Government is allowed to operate outside the Constitution in one thing, then you must certainly agree that they can violate the Constitution in any thing they wish; do you not? If not, explain which parts they can violate and which parts they cannot and how we tell them apart.

You're an anti-Constitution, anti-2nd Amendment, gun controller. Oh, sure, you like your guns and even the right for some people to keep and bear some arms, if they first get government permission, but you can't claim to support the 2nd Amendment unless you support the part that says, "shall not be infringed" and you can't claim to defend the Constitution unless you support the 2nd Amendment.
 

woodwork201

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
4,284
Reaction score
2,647
Points
1,938
Yeah he's full of it, so I'm not sure about this poster. He might be trolling for the sake of argument, and if he keeps it up he will be reported.
Report me, gun controller.
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
104,836
Reaction score
50,854
Points
2,330
So you're in favor of gun control that doesn't work to keep law breakers from having guns but might keep law abiding from having guns. You're in favor of gun registration which allows the government to get the guns, as historically proven many times.

You're in favor of what you consider to be reasonable gun control - all of which has been absolutely proven to NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Wonder why that is? It's because they're criminals; they don't care about the law. Why are you too dense to understand that? Were you dropped on the head as a child? Got too close to the batter in a baseball game? What happened?

Your suggestion of adapting to the times to keep the criminals at bay apparently includes not following the Constitution. When you agree that the Government is allowed to operate outside the Constitution in one thing, then you must certainly agree that they can violate the Constitution in any thing they wish; do you not? If not, explain which parts they can violate and which parts they cannot and how we tell them apart.

You're an anti-Constitution, anti-2nd Amendment, gun controller. Oh, sure, you like your guns and even the right for some people to keep and bear some arms, if they first get government permission, but you can't claim to support the 2nd Amendment unless you support the part that says, "shall not be infringed" and you can't claim to defend the Constitution unless you support the 2nd Amendment.
Damn you're a lying pos aren't you? Is your boyfriend a democrat too?
 

woodwork201

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
4,284
Reaction score
2,647
Points
1,938
Damn you're a lying pos aren't you? Is your boyfriend a democrat too?
Here's the proof, once again, that I posted in another thread that you and M14 Shooter are gun controllers.

It's OK to support gun control - if you do it honestly. That can be a difference of opinion. But when you pretend to support the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution when you actually support neither is just a lie:

Here ya go - edit to add: readers should expand all the quote sections to get all of the context and the many times that M14 Shooter and miketx claim that any right can be stripped using due process. Of course you're free to make up your own minds if it's true or not.
You cannot infringe on a right someone does not have; not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
Some people have had their right removed theough due process, as prescribed by the 5th Amendment.
Are you that stupid? Do convicted felons get to keep and bear arms? No, they don't! They lost that right! Are you really that goddamned stupid that you think convicted felons can be armed legally?

I never said give just anyone a gun.
The Second Amendment says just that.
You're a liar like always. ALWAYS!

If you can be deprived of your life, you can be deprived of all your rights.
And, "liberty", in a sense only a slightly broader than "walking around freely", refers to your rights.

Like I said, here's M14 Shooter saying it and you liked the post.
You cannot infringe on a right someone does not have; not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
Some people have had their right removed theough due process, as prescribed by the 5th Amendment.

Screenshot from 2022-06-26 19-28-36.png


I've shown you making the same claim that the right to keep and bear arms can be stripped. You agree with M14 Shooter that it can be stripped so once it's stripped you don't have the right so it can't be infringed..
That's some very crazy logic to come around to stripping rights is not infringing on the right because you don't have the right because it was stripped and the 5th Amendment means any right can be stripped through due process, including the right to due process so they don't actually have to use due process to strip your rights because the right to due process was stripped...
Do you even get how ludicrous that sounds?
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
104,836
Reaction score
50,854
Points
2,330
Here's the proof, once again, that I posted in another thread that you and M14 Shooter are gun controllers.

It's OK to support gun control - if you do it honestly. That can be a difference of opinion. But when you pretend to support the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution when you actually support neither is just a lie:

Here ya go - edit to add: readers should expand all the quote sections to get all of the context and the many times that M14 Shooter and miketx claim that any right can be stripped using due process. Of course you're free to make up your own minds if it's true or not.









Like I said, here's M14 Shooter saying it and you liked the post.


Screenshot from 2022-06-26 19-28-36.png


I've shown you making the same claim that the right to keep and bear arms can be stripped. You agree with M14 Shooter that it can be stripped so once it's stripped you don't have the right so it can't be infringed..
That's some very crazy logic to come around to stripping rights is not infringing on the right because you don't have the right because it was stripped and the 5th Amendment means any right can be stripped through due process, including the right to due process so they don't actually have to use due process to strip your rights because the right to due process was stripped...
Do you even get how ludicrous that sounds?
Here we have a democrat who wants murderers and rapists that are released from prison to have guns. Funny how the mind of a crime lover works.
 

PoliticalChic

Diamond Member
Joined
Oct 6, 2008
Messages
122,702
Reaction score
57,153
Points
2,300
Location
Brooklyn, NY
So you're in favor of gun control that doesn't work to keep law breakers from having guns but might keep law abiding from having guns. You're in favor of gun registration which allows the government to get the guns, as historically proven many times.

You're in favor of what you consider to be reasonable gun control - all of which has been absolutely proven to NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Wonder why that is? It's because they're criminals; they don't care about the law. Why are you too dense to understand that? Were you dropped on the head as a child? Got too close to the batter in a baseball game? What happened?

Your suggestion of adapting to the times to keep the criminals at bay apparently includes not following the Constitution. When you agree that the Government is allowed to operate outside the Constitution in one thing, then you must certainly agree that they can violate the Constitution in any thing they wish; do you not? If not, explain which parts they can violate and which parts they cannot and how we tell them apart.

You're an anti-Constitution, anti-2nd Amendment, gun controller. Oh, sure, you like your guns and even the right for some people to keep and bear some arms, if they first get government permission, but you can't claim to support the 2nd Amendment unless you support the part that says, "shall not be infringed" and you can't claim to defend the Constitution unless you support the 2nd Amendment.


Licensed gun owners are the single most law-abiding Americans.

Example:
  1. Permit holders are extremely law abiding. They would lose their permits for any weapons-related infraction. It doesn’t happen
    1. Example: “Of the 51,078 permits that have been issued by the state since the law took effect in 2007, 44 permit holders have been charged with a crime while using a firearm through late October, according to records provided by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.”
    2. http://www.kansas.com/news/article1103132.html
    3. http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html ( .00086%)
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
104,836
Reaction score
50,854
Points
2,330
Licensed gun owners are the single most law-abiding Americans.

Example:
  1. Permit holders are extremely law abiding. They would lose their permits for any weapons-related infraction. It doesn’t happen
    1. Example: “Of the 51,078 permits that have been issued by the state since the law took effect in 2007, 44 permit holders have been charged with a crime while using a firearm through late October, according to records provided by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.”
    2. http://www.kansas.com/news/article1103132.html
    3. http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html ( .00086%)
That stooge is here just to stir up trouble.
 

woodwork201

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
4,284
Reaction score
2,647
Points
1,938
Here we have a democrat who wants murderers and rapists that are released from prison to have guns. Funny how the mind of a crime lover works.
Here we have an idiot who thinks that murderers and rapists that are released from prison don't have guns.

The difference between you and me, idiot, is that I don't want murderers and rapists released from prison. I actually want to stop crime instead of taking feel good steps that not only don't work, they actually make it worse because people think they're safe from murderers and rapists because of some stupid law.
 

woodwork201

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
4,284
Reaction score
2,647
Points
1,938
That stooge is here just to stir up trouble.
I just call it like it is. I'm not going to go along with your lie of being a supporter of the 2nd Amendment when you clearly do not.

When the left say that 90% of gun owners support gun registration, through mandatory background checks or other "reasonable" gun control, it is you about whom they are speaking.
 

woodwork201

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
4,284
Reaction score
2,647
Points
1,938
Let's put it this way, I'm in favor of enforcing the laws we have already, and I'm also for keeping guns out of the hands of criminal's, and especially from these gang's who are reeking havock in the communities and within our societies that we are trying to live peacefully within.

You realize that the law that implemented most of what you support is titled the Gun Control Act of 1968, right? It's gun control. You support gun control. Just be honest with yourself and with us. You're not a supporter of "shall not be infringed" so you're not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and, by inclusion, not a supporter of the Constitution.

Not sure who you are, but you aren't dealing with a fool here, so save your quick condemnation for a leftist.

Yeah, so you say. Your anti-2nd Amendment posts don't make you a fool; they just make you anti-2nd Amendment. What makes you a fool is that you believe gun control makes a difference in crime.
 

Monk-Eye

Gold Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2018
Messages
2,301
Reaction score
510
Points
140
" Great Equalizer Of Shut Up And Shoot Back "

* Granny Get Your Peace Maker *


In my opinion the left would not understand the benefit of being able to arm themselves until puritanical mobs show up on their lawns to hall them off to the gallows .

Veterans from the battle field have seen the carnage that exists within the veracity of mammon and while mass shootings are sensational news stories , they are nothing by comparison , and those who died to ensure that others are free to defend themselves should not be sacrificed in vain .

I record and watch the Barney Miller show and the topic of " Do you have a license permit for that weapon ? " comes up repeatedly .

In the program situations review new york city limits on who is authorized to have a gun license , with store owners or assault victims being charged for defending their property and their weapons immediately confiscated , with law enforcement , or personal body guards of high profile political targets , or security guards for large sums of money are among the few allowed .

I am a pro-choice republican and this decision is legitimate , whereas the usurping a birth requirement for equal protection is sedition .
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
104,836
Reaction score
50,854
Points
2,330
I just call it like it is. I'm not going to go along with your lie of being a supporter of the 2nd Amendment when you clearly do not.

When the left say that 90% of gun owners support gun registration, through mandatory background checks or other "reasonable" gun control, it is you about whom they are speaking.
Liars gotta lie.
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
104,836
Reaction score
50,854
Points
2,330
Here we have an idiot who thinks that murderers and rapists that are released from prison don't have guns.

The difference between you and me, idiot, is that I don't want murderers and rapists released from prison. I actually want to stop crime instead of taking feel good steps that not only don't work, they actually make it worse because people think they're safe from murderers and rapists because of some stupid law.
You've proven how stupid you are. You can stop.
 

beagle9

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
33,264
Reaction score
9,945
Points
1,330
So you're in favor of gun control that doesn't work to keep law breakers from having guns but might keep law abiding from having guns. You're in favor of gun registration which allows the government to get the guns, as historically proven many times.

You're in favor of what you consider to be reasonable gun control - all of which has been absolutely proven to NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals. Wonder why that is? It's because they're criminals; they don't care about the law. Why are you too dense to understand that? Were you dropped on the head as a child? Got too close to the batter in a baseball game? What happened?

Your suggestion of adapting to the times to keep the criminals at bay apparently includes not following the Constitution. When you agree that the Government is allowed to operate outside the Constitution in one thing, then you must certainly agree that they can violate the Constitution in any thing they wish; do you not? If not, explain which parts they can violate and which parts they cannot and how we tell them apart.

You're an anti-Constitution, anti-2nd Amendment, gun controller. Oh, sure, you like your guns and even the right for some people to keep and bear some arms, if they first get government permission, but you can't claim to support the 2nd Amendment unless you support the part that says, "shall not be infringed" and you can't claim to defend the Constitution unless you support the 2nd Amendment.
You have got to be the most comprehension challenged human being I've ever met. Now go play in the sand box with the rest of your kid's who can't comprehend what adult's are saying when they speak. And political chick, I usually like everything you post, but you giving a thanks to this doofus puts you on probation with me. Back to this dummy, you act just like a leftist attempting to assign words and false intent to my post for argumentative purposes.
 

beagle9

Diamond Member
Joined
Nov 28, 2011
Messages
33,264
Reaction score
9,945
Points
1,330
You've proven how stupid you are. You can stop.
He won't, he's just that stupid.... I see how he likes to assign everyone a narrative that he wants to assign them with, and then argue that narrative as if you or me actually insinuated or said what he says that we said or he says that we wanted to say but didn't say it...lol

It's a common leftist tactic here, so one's gotta wonder where this cat's loyalty truly lays ? The bad thing is that he got political chic to actually give a thanks to his bull crap.
 

woodwork201

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
4,284
Reaction score
2,647
Points
1,938
You have got to be the most comprehension challenged human being I've ever met. Now go play in the sand box with the rest of your kid's who can't comprehend what adult's are saying when they speak. And political chick, I usually like everything you post, but you giving a thanks to this doofus puts you on probation with me. Back to this dummy, you act just like a leftist attempting to assign words and false intent to my post for argumentative purposes.

He won't, he's just that stupid.... I see how he likes to assign everyone a narrative that he wants to assign them with, and then argue that narrative as if you or me actually insinuated or said what he says that we said or he says that we wanted to say but didn't say it...lol

It's a common leftist tactic here, so one's gotta wonder where this cat's loyalty truly lays ? The bad thing is that he got political chic to actually give a thanks to his bull crap.

Calling me a leftist is a good diversion for a gun controller trying to turn attention away from his own statements. What you really don't like is being pointed out for the Fudd gun controller that you are.

Here's what you said in an earlier post in this thread:
I am in favor of strong background checks not red flag law's, and I'm in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of known or found to be criminal's through the background checks, but I'm not in favor of taking guns from law abiding citizen's, otherwise I'm against making it hard on law abiding citizen's to own and have the gun's of their choosing.
I'm for proper storage that keep people from easy access to guns during a break in, otherwise to one's home or automobile where a gun might be hap-hazzardly stored.

Anyone with half a brain knows that background checks = registration. You support both or you support neither.

And mandatory storage has already been held unconstitutional in Heller. So you're not an originalist, you don't support "shall not be infringed", and you don't support the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller.

You're just about as anti-2nd Amendment as any one I know of not a member of one of Bloomberg's anti-gun clubs.

Anyone with a quarter of a brain knows that laws against criminals purchasing guns don't prevent criminals from having guns. Do you not have even a quarter of a brain?

There's probably something you don't know about criminals, I guess, so let me enlighten you: criminals don't follow the law. I know. That must be quite a shock for that less-than-a-quarter of a brain you have but it's actually true. You can google it if you don't believe me.

So all you prove with your posts is that you're ignorant of the world around you and that you have bought into the leftist gun control ideas.
 
Last edited:

AZrailwhale

Diamond Member
Joined
Aug 21, 2020
Messages
5,722
Reaction score
4,387
Points
1,938
Location
Arizona
Wait until every violent thug, and a fast growing Latino population are all carrying around these conservative white peoples neighborhoods, schools, and churches.

Oh, did I forget to mention the rather large, and growing Muslim population also? No?

:stir:
The violent thugs are already packing.
 

miketx

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 25, 2015
Messages
104,836
Reaction score
50,854
Points
2,330
Calling me a leftist is a good diversion for a gun controller trying to turn attention away from his own statements. What you really don't like is being pointed out for the Fudd gun controller that you are.

Here's what you said in an earlier post in this thread:
I am in favor of strong background checks not red flag law's, and I'm in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of known or found to be criminal's through the background checks, but I'm not in favor of taking guns from law abiding citizen's, otherwise I'm against making it hard on law abiding citizen's to own and have the gun's of their choosing.
I'm for proper storage that keep people from easy access to guns during a break in, otherwise to one's home or automobile where a gun might be hap-hazzardly stored.

Anyone with half a brain knows that background checks = registration. You support both or you support neither.

And mandatory storage has already been held unconstitutional in Heller. So you're not an originalist, you don't support "shall not be infringed", and you don't support the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller.

You're just about as anti-2nd Amendment as any one I know of not a member of one of Bloomberg's anti-gun clubs.

Anyone with a quarter of a brain knows that laws against criminals purchasing guns don't prevent criminals from having guns. Do you not have even a quarter of a brain?

There's probably something you don't know about criminals, I guess, so let me enlighten you: criminals don't follow the law. I know. That must be quite a shock for that less-than-a-quarter of a brain you have but it's actually true. You can google it if you don't believe me.

So all you prove with your posts is that you're ignorant of the world around you and that you have bought into the leftist gun control ideas.
troll lying scum
 

woodwork201

Diamond Member
Joined
Mar 2, 2021
Messages
4,284
Reaction score
2,647
Points
1,938
troll lying scum
I notice you haven't argued in a while for or against any of the gun controlling posts you made that I keep posting for the world to see. Name calling is a much better tactic than defending your stated positions when the facts prove you're a gun controller.
 

USMB Server Goals

Total amount
$0.00
Goal
$350.00

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top