Universal background checks... really?

[Brain357]

Scalia Was Wrong On Gun History, But That's Not The Point

Tell us why we should give a rat **** what some communist hack blogger things about a SCOTUS decision. That is in no way persuasive.

I think Scalia was wrong in that, with the clear intent of the 2nd being a reservation of power to the states, he FAILED to declare all federal gun laws unconstitutional.

.

The clear meaning is that they are allowed to have well regulated militias.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Really wrong is ignoring well regulated and militia, and getting the meaning of bear arms wrong.

So, you're still going with the whole "individuals do not have the right to KEEP and bear arms" argument? You're going with the illogical and IMPOSSIBLE argument that rights can be held collectively without also being held individually? You must know that is retarded as ****, don't you?

And you wonder why we are CERTAIN you cocksucking communist motherfuckers want a complete ban and confiscation.

Why should we, the 150+ million gun owners not IMMEDIATELY go ahead and completely defy all gun laws and dare someone to stop us? Why should we NOT go ahead and start acquiring machine guns and dare you fuckers to do something about it?

You have already declared war. Why should we NOT start daring you to fire the first shots?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The study is what matters.


However, after consulting two databases which together contain about 140,000 texts from the early modern and founding periods, Dennis Baron has concluded otherwise: “Non-military uses of ‘bear arms’ are not just rare — they’re almost nonexistent.” In the roughly 1,500 occurrences Barron found from the 1600s and 1700s, “only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action.” And that, he argues, makes perfect sense, since a non-military usage of “bear arms” was and remains simply bizarre: “we still can’t bear arms against a rabbit, or a mugger, or a tin can on a tree stump in the yard. That is just not how we talk.”

That is a inconsequential bullshit. Ignore the word "keep" if you want.

Do individuals have the right to own guns? Did that right exist BEFORE the government was formed?

You are saying "NO" and I am saying "fine, I dare you to stop us."

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Scalia Was Wrong On Gun History, But That's Not The Point

Tell us why we should give a rat **** what some communist hack blogger things about a SCOTUS decision. That is in no way persuasive.

I think Scalia was wrong in that, with the clear intent of the 2nd being a reservation of power to the states, he FAILED to declare all federal gun laws unconstitutional.

.

The clear meaning is that they are allowed to have well regulated militias.

Again, you are saying that individuals do not have the right to own guns, right?

Go on record, you **** burger.

.

 

[Brain357]

The study is what matters.


However, after consulting two databases which together contain about 140,000 texts from the early modern and founding periods, Dennis Baron has concluded otherwise: “Non-military uses of ‘bear arms’ are not just rare — they’re almost nonexistent.” In the roughly 1,500 occurrences Barron found from the 1600s and 1700s, “only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action.” And that, he argues, makes perfect sense, since a non-military usage of “bear arms” was and remains simply bizarre: “we still can’t bear arms against a rabbit, or a mugger, or a tin can on a tree stump in the yard. That is just not how we talk.”

That is a inconsequential bullshit. Ignore the word "keep" if you want.

Do individuals have the right to own guns? Did that right exist BEFORE the government was formed?

You are saying "NO" and I am saying "fine, I dare you to stop us."

.

You just hate facts eh?

 

[Brain357]

Scalia Was Wrong On Gun History, But That's Not The Point

Tell us why we should give a rat **** what some communist hack blogger things about a SCOTUS decision. That is in no way persuasive.

I think Scalia was wrong in that, with the clear intent of the 2nd being a reservation of power to the states, he FAILED to declare all federal gun laws unconstitutional.

.

The clear meaning is that they are allowed to have well regulated militias.

Again, you are saying that individuals do not have the right to own guns, right?

Go on record, you **** burger.

.

The government has the right to regulate it as they choose.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Again, you are saying that individuals do not have the right to own guns, right?

Anyone who says so is lying to themselves.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The study is what matters.


However, after consulting two databases which together contain about 140,000 texts from the early modern and founding periods, Dennis Baron has concluded otherwise: “Non-military uses of ‘bear arms’ are not just rare — they’re almost nonexistent.” In the roughly 1,500 occurrences Barron found from the 1600s and 1700s, “only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action.” And that, he argues, makes perfect sense, since a non-military usage of “bear arms” was and remains simply bizarre: “we still can’t bear arms against a rabbit, or a mugger, or a tin can on a tree stump in the yard. That is just not how we talk.”

That is a inconsequential bullshit. Ignore the word "keep" if you want.

Do individuals have the right to own guns? Did that right exist BEFORE the government was formed?

You are saying "NO" and I am saying "fine, I dare you to stop us."

.

You just hate facts eh?

What facts? That individuals DO have the right to keep and bear arms?

Make your declaration, commie. What is it?

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Scalia Was Wrong On Gun History, But That's Not The Point

Tell us why we should give a rat **** what some communist hack blogger things about a SCOTUS decision. That is in no way persuasive.

I think Scalia was wrong in that, with the clear intent of the 2nd being a reservation of power to the states, he FAILED to declare all federal gun laws unconstitutional.

.

The clear meaning is that they are allowed to have well regulated militias.

Again, you are saying that individuals do not have the right to own guns, right?

Go on record, you **** burger.

.

The government has the right to regulate it as they choose.

That's not what I asked you, butt ******.

DO INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS????

.

 

[Brain357]

The study is what matters.


However, after consulting two databases which together contain about 140,000 texts from the early modern and founding periods, Dennis Baron has concluded otherwise: “Non-military uses of ‘bear arms’ are not just rare — they’re almost nonexistent.” In the roughly 1,500 occurrences Barron found from the 1600s and 1700s, “only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action.” And that, he argues, makes perfect sense, since a non-military usage of “bear arms” was and remains simply bizarre: “we still can’t bear arms against a rabbit, or a mugger, or a tin can on a tree stump in the yard. That is just not how we talk.”

That is a inconsequential bullshit. Ignore the word "keep" if you want.

Do individuals have the right to own guns? Did that right exist BEFORE the government was formed?

You are saying "NO" and I am saying "fine, I dare you to stop us."

.

You just hate facts eh?

What facts? That individuals DO have the right to keep and bear arms?

Make your declaration, commie. What is it?

.

The 2nd is clearly in regards to a well regulated militia, just as bearing arms is a military use.

 

[Brain357]

Scalia Was Wrong On Gun History, But That's Not The Point

Tell us why we should give a rat **** what some communist hack blogger things about a SCOTUS decision. That is in no way persuasive.

I think Scalia was wrong in that, with the clear intent of the 2nd being a reservation of power to the states, he FAILED to declare all federal gun laws unconstitutional.

.

The clear meaning is that they are allowed to have well regulated militias.

Again, you are saying that individuals do not have the right to own guns, right?

Go on record, you **** burger.

.

The government has the right to regulate it as they choose.

That's not what I asked you, butt ******.

DO INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS????

.

Not from the constitution.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The study is what matters.


However, after consulting two databases which together contain about 140,000 texts from the early modern and founding periods, Dennis Baron has concluded otherwise: “Non-military uses of ‘bear arms’ are not just rare — they’re almost nonexistent.” In the roughly 1,500 occurrences Barron found from the 1600s and 1700s, “only a handful don’t refer to war, soldiering or organized, armed action.” And that, he argues, makes perfect sense, since a non-military usage of “bear arms” was and remains simply bizarre: “we still can’t bear arms against a rabbit, or a mugger, or a tin can on a tree stump in the yard. That is just not how we talk.”

That is a inconsequential bullshit. Ignore the word "keep" if you want.

Do individuals have the right to own guns? Did that right exist BEFORE the government was formed?

You are saying "NO" and I am saying "fine, I dare you to stop us."

.

You just hate facts eh?

What facts? That individuals DO have the right to keep and bear arms?

Make your declaration, commie. What is it?

.

The 2nd is clearly in regards to a well regulated militia, just as bearing arms is a military use.

DO
INDIVIDUALS
HAVE
THE
RIGHT
TO
OWN
GUNS?????

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Tell us why we should give a rat **** what some communist hack blogger things about a SCOTUS decision. That is in no way persuasive.

I think Scalia was wrong in that, with the clear intent of the 2nd being a reservation of power to the states, he FAILED to declare all federal gun laws unconstitutional.

.

The clear meaning is that they are allowed to have well regulated militias.

Again, you are saying that individuals do not have the right to own guns, right?

Go on record, you **** burger.

.

The government has the right to regulate it as they choose.

That's not what I asked you, butt ******.

DO INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS????

.

Not from the constitution.

So, what does the 2nd do????????

LIMITS THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!

So, you agree that all federal gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, right?

.

 

[Brain357]

The clear meaning is that they are allowed to have well regulated militias.

Again, you are saying that individuals do not have the right to own guns, right?

Go on record, you **** burger.

.

The government has the right to regulate it as they choose.

That's not what I asked you, butt ******.

DO INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS????

.

Not from the constitution.

So, what does the 2nd do????????

LIMITS THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!

So, you agree that all federal gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, right?

.

Not at all. They have the right to regulate individual ownership of guns.

 

[Rustic]

Progressives want Background checks on all private sales. Why? Who pays for that? Paying for an right?
That is definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.

Any type of waiting period on an right? I don’t think so, definitely unconstitutional and absolutely ridiculous.
No one should have to wait more than seconds to purchase their firearms.

Obviously universal background checks I have nothing to do with firearms… Like always... it’s always been about control.
The ******* spineless gun grabbers can pound sand... lol

The gun salesman doesn’t want more background checks, shocking. How many criminals you selling to?

Lol
Nice deflection

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Again, you are saying that individuals do not have the right to own guns, right?

Go on record, you **** burger.

.

The government has the right to regulate it as they choose.

That's not what I asked you, butt ******.

DO INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS????

.

Not from the constitution.

So, what does the 2nd do????????

LIMITS THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!

So, you agree that all federal gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, right?

.

Not at all. They have the right to regulate individual ownership of guns.

Then WHAT is the real purpose of the 2nd? What the **** did it actually do?

Can you even explain that?

.

 

[Brain357]

The government has the right to regulate it as they choose.

That's not what I asked you, butt ******.

DO INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS????

.

Not from the constitution.

So, what does the 2nd do????????

LIMITS THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!

So, you agree that all federal gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, right?

.

Not at all. They have the right to regulate individual ownership of guns.

Then WHAT is the real purpose of the 2nd? What the **** did it actually do?

Can you even explain that?

.

It is the right for states to have a well regulated militia. That militia has the right to bear arms. Many would say that role is filled by the national guard.

 

[Brain357]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "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 way that I read it, the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is predicated on, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." This tells me that people who want to "keep and bear arms" must be a part of a "well regulated militia" if they want to claim Second Amendment rights.

What we have now with most, if not all, civilian ownership of "arms" is basically a free-for-all where there are few, if any, rules and regulations, and no organization. For sure, there is nothing "well regulated" and there is no "militia" in current civilian gun ownership. And this free-for-all is not protected by the Second Amendment.

What the Second Amendment really says

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

That's not what I asked you, butt ******.

DO INDIVIDUALS HAVE THE RIGHT TO OWN GUNS????

.

Not from the constitution.

So, what does the 2nd do????????

LIMITS THE POWER OF THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!!!

So, you agree that all federal gun laws are UNCONSTITUTIONAL, right?

.

Not at all. They have the right to regulate individual ownership of guns.

Then WHAT is the real purpose of the 2nd? What the **** did it actually do?

Can you even explain that?

.

It is the right for states to have a well regulated militia. That militia has the right to bear arms. Many would say that role is filled by the national guard.

So, when it says "the right of the people shall not be infringed" it means that the federal government will not ... WHAT??

.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

The Second Amendment to the United States Constitution says, "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 way that I read it, the clause, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed," is predicated on, "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state." This tells me that people who want to "keep and bear arms" must be a part of a "well regulated militia" if they want to claim Second Amendment rights.

What we have now with most, if not all, civilian ownership of "arms" is basically a free-for-all where there are few, if any, rules and regulations, and no organization. For sure, there is nothing "well regulated" and there is no "militia" in current civilian gun ownership. And this free-for-all is not protected by the Second Amendment.

What the Second Amendment really says

But, no reasonable person could possibly interpret it that way.

Let's take your fucked up logic and apply it to a different scenario:

"A well-balanced breakfast being necessary for the start of a healthy day, the right of the people to keep and eat food shall not be infringed."

People ONLY have the right to keep and eat food if they are eating a well-balanced breakfast?

What about dinner?

.