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

[Cellblock2429]

Correct.

But the dishonest right will continue to lie about guns being banned and confiscated.

/———/ Yeah, we believe you. Sure we do.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Correct.

But the dishonest right will continue to lie about guns being banned and confiscated.

It gets the gullible to buy more guns.
You would have to be pretty damned stupid to go out and purchase something, you're convinced...........will be banned.

 

[Smokin' OP]

/———/ And you know this how??? TDS Bwhahahaha Bwhahahaha

Because.................it fucking happened, dumbass.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

/———/ Yeah, we believe you. Sure we do.

Guns aren't going to be banned or confiscated, that's nothing but rightwing demagoguery and lies.

 

[C_Clayton_Jones]

It gets the gullible to buy more guns.
You would have to be pretty damned stupid to go out and purchase something, you're convinced...........will be banned.

Conservatives lie about bans and confiscation to keep the base frightened, angry, and going to the polls.

 

[Wild Bill Kelsoe]

No, but Trump's cult is.

How so? Trump supporters aren't the government. They're citizens, excercising their rights. That literally the antithesis of tyranny.

 

[Cellblock2429]

Guns aren't going to be banned or confiscated, that's nothing but rightwing demagoguery and lies.

/——-/ Your gun grabbing buddies already ratted you out. (WATCH) Democrats Openly Admit They Want to Confiscate Firearms in 'Common Use'

 

[M14 Shooter]

/——-/ Your gun grabbing buddies already ratted you out. (WATCH) Democrats Openly Admit They Want to Confiscate Firearms in 'Common Use'

He knows. He chooses to lie.

 

[2aguy]

Trump didn't need to, Trump's cult was already going to attack the capitol and he never to them to go home, after his pity rally, he told them to go.

So....I guess the checks from the CCP cashed .........and here you are still pushing the Jan. 6 show trial....

 

[Cellblock2429]

Correct.

But the dishonest right will continue to lie about guns being banned and confiscated.

/——-/ (WATCH) Democrats Openly Admit They Want to Confiscate Firearms in 'Common Use'

 

[woodwork201]

Perhaps you should reconsider how it is you frame an argument and what manner of information you include in that arguement.

I happen to read at a Graduate level. You? I have doubts.,

Further reading of the discussion brings into question of whether that graduate level you claim to read at is graduate school, high school, or 3rd grade.

I stated that five different states included language about the right to keep and bear arms in their ratification of "the Constitution". I didn't say "their constitution" or "their constitutions" or "the constitutions". Nobody with a GED could interpret the states ratifying "the Constitution" as their constitution.

And how did you ever get the idea that I was suggesting that the right to keep and bear arms was other than a right of the people? Here's what you said:

The prefatory clause, as is agreed to by most legal scholars and linguists, is an explanation for the purpose of why government SHALL not infringe up the right of the people.

In the paragraph above, you tie the right to the militia. You're the one wrong. The right is NOT tied to the militia. The militia is NOT the reason the right cannot be infringed. That's the argument that the left uses, suggesting that the militia is no longer used so there's no longer a right.

In every instance where the Bill of Rights speaks, the Amendments are either a restriction on government or an unassailable right OF THE PEOPLE.

Well, duh. What I proved by using the original writings of those who drove the creation of the 2nd Amendment, is that the militia clause is NOT tied to the right to keep and bear arms. The right to keep and bear arms is independent of the militia clause. Therefore, I said, in fact I proved beyond doubt, exactly what you're yelling at me in the paragraph above.

So, my suggestion to you is to go back and study what I posted about the origins of the text of the 2nd Amendment, and use those graduate level reading skills. And if you still can't understand what I wrote, consider returning your graduate degree and insisting on a refund.

And, while you're boasting about your graduate level reading skills, get some elementary level spelling skills; even with the spell check on your browser, you still can't spell "argument". Normally, if the message is clear then who cares about the spelling or grammar but if you're going to brag about your graduate level language skills, then prove you have them.

 

[woodwork201]

Having college graduates work for you is proof of your intelligence?

Wow.

I read at a level considered "graduate" by English scholars.

I read the post, and you are wrong, as you lack the understanding of a simple compound statement that uses an explanatory clause to justify the premise of the foremost thought.

Give it up. The Second Amendment does NOT give authority to the state to form militias and they -- militias -- are not a requirement for the ownership of weapons.

Full stop.

You can disagree all you like, but you are clearly wrong.

Once again, you demonstrate that you must have gotten your graduate degree by mail order. Quote where I said that the 2nd Amendment gives authority to the state to form militias or that militias are a requirement to keep and bear arms? Your reading comprehension is completely high-school-dropout level.

And, even again, you prove your lack of reading comprehension skills. I didn't say that having those with masters degrees working for me makes me smart. What I said is that I know enough to know that their degree doesn't make them smart, just as you are proving that your degree doesn't make you smart.

 

[woodwork201]

Dumbfuck your word salad wasn't read. The second amendment has been weaken however gun owners are taking it back. I'm a gun rights activists you are not. I give thousands of dollars every year to groups like the second amendment foundation, FPC, Gun Owners of America. I am a life time member of the Second Amendment Foundation and the GOA. I am also a paid subscriber to Armed American Radio. The three groups I mentioned are the ones that fight in court defending my rights. So who do you contribute too?

I donate a million dollars each year to each of the NRA and GOA.

Well, of course I don't do that but see how easy it is to type shit on the Internet about what a fighter I am for the right to keep and bear arms by donating money? Your claims don't make you a warrior for the cause.

I already said I believe you like your guns. You really believe you are fighting for the right to keep and bear arms. That wasn't the challenge. What started this is that you said that the unorganized militia cannot be federalized without the permission of the governor. I just asked you to back that up by telling us where it says that.

Of course you can't defend that statement by showing us anything in the Constitution that backs that up so, to defend your ignorance, you went on the attack, attempting to make the discussion about your attack on me instead of the fact that you were just ignorant on the Constitution.

Ignorance is OK. I'm ignorant on how to operate the tire changing machine at the tire shop. I could learn it but I haven't. You're ignorant on the Constitution but that's OK; you can learn it.

But to learn the Constitution, you would have to quit responding to polite, honest, questions with rage and attack. You could have taken my question as something to look up so you could try to prove me wrong. Had you looked it up you would have learned something. But you chose not to learn but to attack.

And, of course you continue to make ignorant statements. You suggest that because the National Guard was created in 1903 then the unorganized militia can't be federalized.

Then you claim that the National Guard is the militia. Many have fallen for that lie but anyone trying to defend the Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms must be wise enough to understand that is a lie.

Once again, I gave you the opportunity to learn had you researched to answer my question. Nowhere does the Constitution give the Federal Government the authority to send the militia to foreign soil to fight wars or to combine the militia with the standing army. Therefore, all of the claims to the contrary or not, the National Guard cannot be the militia. The National Guard was created to convince suckers that the standing army is the militia. But you can't back up your statement with the Constitution because your response to my reasonable, polite, question was, once again, to attack. If you attack, you seem to think, then you need not back up your other claims with any documentation.

That's OK. You can believe what you wish, you can say what you want. But I'm not going to pretend to agree with your ignorance and play that game that would make you a positive force in the fight to defend the Constitution and the right to keep and bear arms. To play along with weakness is to lose the war. I have no intention of losing the war. I'm not going to pretend you're right when you're not just to get along. Not you, and not anyone else.

If you want to be in the fight to save the country, at least do the work to understand what the fight is about: the Constitution of the United States of America.

 

[woodwork201]

The constitution was written at the 1787 Philadelphia Convention and was ratified through a series of state conventions held in 1787 and 1788.

Good Job! A gold star for you:

Now, then, since the Pennsylvania militia was created in 1777, 10 years before, then the Pennsylvania militia existed when the militia members had their militia provide rifles in their possession and refused to turn them in for cleaning.

I'm glad to see you admit you were wrong. Will you now also admit that the militia members had militia owned rifles in their possession?

 

[woodwork201]

Similarly...
You should be able to tell us the ownership and use of which "arms" are protected by the 2nd, which "arms" are not, and where the constituton draws the line.
And you can't.
You shall now prove me right, and you an idiot.

I don't have to show the line. You're the one that says there's a line and that some arms aren't protected. You're the one that says only commonly used arms are protected. You're the one that says the government can take any right they want, any and all of them.

It's very clear which arms are protected by the 2nd Amendment: all of them. I don't need to give you a list of what is protected, you give us a list of what is not, gun controller.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

I donate a million dollars each year to each of the NRA and GOA.

Now I know you're full of shit

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Guns aren't going to be banned or confiscated, that's nothing but rightwing demagoguery and lies.

No it's leftist demagoguery. And their end game.

 

[woodwork201]

Now I know you're full of shit

Haha.. I was giving you some credit for just being ignorant. Now you've gone full-leftist, taking my comment completely out of context.

If you can't have an honest discussion then you can't call yourself a conservative. You're not just ignorant, now you're a liar as well.

 

[Smokin' OP]

How so? Trump supporters aren't the government. They're citizens, excercising their rights. That literally the antithesis of tyranny.

Sure, nothing to see here.

Republican-held state legislatures have passed bills that give lawmakers more power over the vote by stripping secretaries of state of their power, asserting control over election boards and creating easier methods to overturn election results.
The bills, triggered by baseless claims of widespread fraud in the 2020 election, threaten to politicize traditionally non-partisan election functions by giving Republicans more control over election systems.
Republican state lawmakers have introduced at least 216 bills in 41 states to give legislatures more power over election systems.

Which means if their candidate lost, they just overturn the will of the people.

 

[Smokin' OP]

Good Job! A gold star for you:

Now, then, since the Pennsylvania militia was created in 1777, 10 years before, then the Pennsylvania militia existed when the militia members had their militia provide rifles in their possession and refused to turn them in for cleaning.

I'm glad to see you admit you were wrong. Will you now also admit that the militia members had militia owned rifles in their possession?

Yes, when on active duty.