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!

The assault weapon ban? Not about mass shooters, it’s about Rittenhouse and McCloskys…..

2aguy

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 19, 2014
Messages
102,735
Reaction score
42,432
Points
2,290
The democrats don’t care about mass public shootings and crime……look at democrat party controlled cities each week and the gun deaths there kill more than any mass public shooting………..why do the democrats want to get rid of semi-automatic rifle in particular?

Considering that knives are used to kill over 1,500 people every year while rifles of all types don’t even come close to that number?

The reasons the democrats want to get rid of AR-15 rifles is easy…..they are Kyle Rittenhouse and Mr. and Mrs. McClosky and you can throw in Korean grocery store owners and other business owners who stood outside their businesses with AR-15s and other rifles.

When the democrat party used their brown shirts…..BLM and antifa to loot, burn and kill…in primarily black neighborhoods, always remember that………the only times they were stopped were when Kyle killed two of them, and the McCloskys and others stood up to them, rifles in hand.

That is what drives the democrats and other leftists crazy….errrr…more crazy.

The fact that normal people stopped the democrat party brownshirts, BLM and antifa in their tracks…..even though though they vastly out numbered the innocent Americans they were sent to intimidate…. Scares and pisses off the democrats………

When the democrats send in BLM, and antifa to loot end burn minority businesses before an election, they can’t have those business owners shooting their brown shirts or stopping their brown shirts……..so these rifles have to go…….then they will come after the rest of the guns…..
 

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
11,149
Reaction score
5,079
Points
938
Location
Florida
Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Like open heart surgery, first anesthetize the patient.

Trumptards: "NAW, don't need none of that".
"That causes your heart to go bad"
 

Hugo Furst

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
76,058
Reaction score
36,004
Points
2,290
Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Like open heart surgery, first anesthetize the patient.

Trumptards: "NAW, don't need none of that".
"That causes your heart to go bad"
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Then why did they give the Right to keep and bear arms to the people, and not just the militia?
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
62,007
Reaction score
46,253
Points
3,645
Location
Florida
Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Like open heart surgery, first anesthetize the patient.

Trumptards: "NAW, don't need none of that".
"That causes your heart to go bad"
Stupid confused uneducated Moon Bats like you ignore the fact that the Supreme Court said the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and is not connected to any membership in any organization, militia or otherwise.

Do you have peanut butter in your ears?
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
62,007
Reaction score
46,253
Points
3,645
Location
Florida
The democrats don’t care about mass public shootings and crime……look at democrat party controlled cities each week and the gun deaths there kill more than any mass public shooting………..why do the democrats want to get rid of semi-automatic rifle in particular?

Considering that knives are used to kill over 1,500 people every year while rifles of all types don’t even come close to that number?

The reasons the democrats want to get rid of AR-15 rifles is easy…..they are Kyle Rittenhouse and Mr. and Mrs. McClosky and you can throw in Korean grocery store owners and other business owners who stood outside their businesses with AR-15s and other rifles.

When the democrat party used their brown shirts…..BLM and antifa to loot, burn and kill…in primarily black neighborhoods, always remember that………the only times they were stopped were when Kyle killed two of them, and the McCloskys and others stood up to them, rifles in hand.

That is what drives the democrats and other leftists crazy….errrr…more crazy.

The fact that normal people stopped the democrat party brownshirts, BLM and antifa in their tracks…..even though though they vastly out numbered the innocent Americans they were sent to intimidate…. Scares and pisses off the democrats………

When the democrats send in BLM, and antifa to loot end burn minority businesses before an election, they can’t have those business owners shooting their brown shirts or stopping their brown shirts……..so these rifles have to go…….then they will come after the rest of the guns…..
I think it is also about 1/6.

The Patriots protesting the election stolen by the Democrats didn't use any firearms but maybe the next time they will.

That scares the hell out the Democrats, who, like all Leftests mostly only attain office though dishonesty and thievery.
 

Hugo Furst

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
76,058
Reaction score
36,004
Points
2,290
WTF?
At the time, the PEOPLE were the militia, you dumbass.
You could be drafted into a militia, on a moments notice.
You're a card carrying moron, right?

Militia was limited to males, 16-45.

The Second gave the right to people outside that age and sex range.

BTW, stupid, I'm 72.

I'd never be called up for militia DUTY.

Find a new talking point.

This one failed.
 

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
11,149
Reaction score
5,079
Points
938
Location
Florida
Stupid confused uneducated Moon Bats like you ignore the fact that the Supreme Court said the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right and is not connected to any membership in any organization, militia or otherwise.
Stupid, confused and uneducated Trumptard.
The SCOTUS ignored half the amendment too.
It was their OPINION.
NOT what the entire 2nd amendment claims, there is a preface..................the first part.
Do you have peanut butter in your ears?
You have shit in yours.
 

Hugo Furst

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
76,058
Reaction score
36,004
Points
2,290
Stupid, confused and uneducated Trumptard.
The SCOTUS ignored half the amendment too.
It was their OPINION.
NOT what the entire 2nd amendment claims, there is a preface..................the first part.

You have shit in yours.
NOT what the entire 2nd amendment claims, there is a preface..................the first part.

and a subject: The Right of the people to Keep and Bear Arms.
 

Flash

Diamond Member
Joined
Dec 8, 2014
Messages
62,007
Reaction score
46,253
Points
3,645
Location
Florida
Stupid, confused and uneducated Trumptard.
The SCOTUS ignored half the amendment too.
It was their OPINION.
NOT what the entire 2nd amendment claims, there is a preface..................the first part.

You have shit in yours.
You stupid uneducated shithead. The Supremes are the ones that have the job under the Constitution to determine things like this. Go look it up. I shit you not.

In DC they said Dick Heller had the right to have a firearm even though he was not a member of any militia,

In Chicago they said that Otis McDonald had the right to have a pistol even though he was not a member of any militia.

Recently in New York they said the people had the right to carry a firearm even though they were not members of any militia.

In all these cases the Supreme Court strongly affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

You have your head up your Libtard ass. You just embarrassed yourself when you post your mindless uneducated dribble.
 

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
11,149
Reaction score
5,079
Points
938
Location
Florida
You're a card carrying moron, right?
Goes without stating YOU ARE.
Militia was limited to males, 16-45.
No shit moron, it also allowed other exemptions as well.
The Second gave the right to people outside that age and sex range.
NO, it didn't idiot.

Guns were common in colonial and revolutionary America, so were gun restrictions. Laws included banning the sale of guns to Native Americans (though colonists frequently traded guns with Native Americans for goods such as corn and fur); banning indentured servants (mainly the Irish) and slaves from owning guns; and exempting a variety of professions from owning guns (including doctors, school masters, lawyers, and millers).

From the 1700s through the 1800s, so-called “slave codes” and, after slavery was abolished in 1865, “black codes” (and, still later, “Jim Crow” laws) prohibited black people from owning guns and laws allowing the ownership of guns frequently specified “free white men.”

For example, an 1833 Georgia law stated, “it shall not be lawful for any free person of colour in this state, to own, use, or carry fire arms of any description whatever… that the free person of colour, so detected in owning, using, or carrying fire arms, shall receive upon his bare back, thirty-nine lashes, and that the fire arm so found in the possession of said free person of colour, shall be exposed for public sale.”

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)

"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. “Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't.” Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.

BTW, stupid, I'm 72.

I'd never be called up for militia DUTY.
1659187055302.png

Find a new talking point.

This one failed.
Yours did.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
70,956
Reaction score
28,671
Points
2,290
Location
In a Republic, actually
The democrats don’t care about mass public shootings and crime……look at democrat party controlled cities each week and the gun deaths there kill more than any mass public shooting………..why do the democrats want to get rid of semi-automatic rifle in particular?

Considering that knives are used to kill over 1,500 people every year while rifles of all types don’t even come close to that number?

The reasons the democrats want to get rid of AR-15 rifles is easy…..they are Kyle Rittenhouse and Mr. and Mrs. McClosky and you can throw in Korean grocery store owners and other business owners who stood outside their businesses with AR-15s and other rifles.

When the democrat party used their brown shirts…..BLM and antifa to loot, burn and kill…in primarily black neighborhoods, always remember that………the only times they were stopped were when Kyle killed two of them, and the McCloskys and others stood up to them, rifles in hand.

That is what drives the democrats and other leftists crazy….errrr…more crazy.

The fact that normal people stopped the democrat party brownshirts, BLM and antifa in their tracks…..even though though they vastly out numbered the innocent Americans they were sent to intimidate…. Scares and pisses off the democrats………

When the democrats send in BLM, and antifa to loot end burn minority businesses before an election, they can’t have those business owners shooting their brown shirts or stopping their brown shirts……..so these rifles have to go…….then they will come after the rest of the guns…..
This is a lie.

The ‘ban’ is an attempt to stop mass shootings, regardless of who the shooter might be.
 

C_Clayton_Jones

Diamond Member
Joined
Apr 28, 2011
Messages
70,956
Reaction score
28,671
Points
2,290
Location
In a Republic, actually
Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Like open heart surgery, first anesthetize the patient.

Trumptards: "NAW, don't need none of that".
"That causes your heart to go bad"
Conservatives ignore Second Amendment case law as well – AWBs are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

AWBs neither violate nor infringe upon the Second Amendment.
 

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
11,149
Reaction score
5,079
Points
938
Location
Florida
You stupid uneducated shithead. The Supremes are the ones that have the job under the Constitution to determine things like this. Go look it up. I shit you not.
YEAH, ONE job...................and they couldn't get THAT right.
In DC they said Dick Heller had the right to have a firearm even though he was not a member of any militia,

In Chicago they said that Otis McDonald had the right to have a pistol even though he was not a member of any militia.

Recently in New York they said the people had the right to carry a firearm even though they were not members of any militia.

In all these cases the Supreme Court strongly affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.
OH' boy "strongly affirmed"..........................like Trump "strongly affirmed" he won the election.
You have your head up your Libtard ass. You just embarrassed yourself when you post your mindless uneducated dribble.
The word is DRIVEL you moron, and you have plenty of it.
 

Hugo Furst

Diamond Member
Gold Supporting Member
Joined
Mar 3, 2013
Messages
76,058
Reaction score
36,004
Points
2,290
Goes without stating YOU ARE.

No shit moron, it also allowed other exemptions as well.

NO, it didn't idiot.

Guns were common in colonial and revolutionary America, so were gun restrictions. Laws included banning the sale of guns to Native Americans (though colonists frequently traded guns with Native Americans for goods such as corn and fur); banning indentured servants (mainly the Irish) and slaves from owning guns; and exempting a variety of professions from owning guns (including doctors, school masters, lawyers, and millers).

From the 1700s through the 1800s, so-called “slave codes” and, after slavery was abolished in 1865, “black codes” (and, still later, “Jim Crow” laws) prohibited black people from owning guns and laws allowing the ownership of guns frequently specified “free white men.”

For example, an 1833 Georgia law stated, “it shall not be lawful for any free person of colour in this state, to own, use, or carry fire arms of any description whatever… that the free person of colour, so detected in owning, using, or carrying fire arms, shall receive upon his bare back, thirty-nine lashes, and that the fire arm so found in the possession of said free person of colour, shall be exposed for public sale.”

The laws of Tombstone at the time required visitors, upon entering town to disarm, either at a hotel or a lawman's office. (Residents of many famed cattle towns, such as Dodge City, Abilene, and Deadwood, had similar restrictions.)

"Tombstone had much more restrictive laws on carrying guns in public in the 1880s than it has today,” says Adam Winkler, a professor and specialist in American constitutional law at UCLA School of Law. “Today, you're allowed to carry a gun without a license or permit on Tombstone streets. Back in the 1880s, you weren't.” Same goes for most of the New West, to varying degrees, in the once-rowdy frontier towns of Nevada, Kansas, Montana, and South Dakota.


View attachment 676292

Yours did.
NO, it didn't idiot.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.
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.

The PEOPLE got the Right, not just the militia.


There is no need to further prove you're an idiot.

Everyone is well aware of it,
 

Smokin' OP

Platinum Member
Joined
Feb 24, 2021
Messages
11,149
Reaction score
5,079
Points
938
Location
Florida
Conservatives ignore Second Amendment case law as well – AWBs are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

AWBs neither violate nor infringe upon the Second Amendment.
For 30 plus years that's what they claimed, wanna buy a howitzer?
You can, but guess what, IT comes with regulations.
 

Blues Man

Platinum Member
Joined
Aug 28, 2016
Messages
25,368
Reaction score
9,926
Points
490
Of course, Trumptards ignore one half of an amendment......................the FIRST part.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State".

Like open heart surgery, first anesthetize the patient.

Trumptards: "NAW, don't need none of that".
"That causes your heart to go bad"
You don't seem to understand the use of being clauses of the time period.

The right of the people is the subject of the Second not the militia.
 

💲 Amazon Deals 💲

Forum List

Top