Zone1 We need a left vs. right experiment

[progressive hunter]

Of course I support the US Constitution, and there is nothing in our state constitution's amendment that is in conflict with the Second Amendment of our US Constitution.

Our state's amendment was just written on a third-grade level, so the stupid motherfuckers that might think they could just try and make it mean something else, by twisting up the language and pretending it meant something other than what it does say, wouldn't have a snowballs chance in hell of being successful at that.

And the US Constitution gives the States the right to do that for clarification, in the 10th Amendment as long as it doesn't violate the US Constitution and it doesn't.

It was challenged in the State Supreme Court after it passed, and they upheld the amendment.

if you support any gun law or amendment from a state you dont support the US constitution,,

thats just a fact of life,, SCOTUS be damned,,

youre just another mindless america hating kool aid drinker waiting for your daily instructions,,

 

[Bitterhook]

if you support any gun law or amendment from a state you dont support the US constitution,,

thats just a fact of life,, SCOTUS be damned,,

No, it isn't but go on pretending if it suits your delusional desire to rule others.

The amendment I am talking about to our state's constitution, just defines what we mean by 'shall not be infringed' and that doesn't violate the US Constitution.

 

[progressive hunter]

No, it isn't but go on pretending if it suits your delusional desire to rule others.

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

I see no room for any law restricting gun rights

but you two faced mindless america hating cock suckers will find what fits your political narrative in anything,,

 

[JoeB131]

whats 43 times of zero??

I know thousands of people with guns and not a single person in their families has been killed with a gun let alone their own gun,,

your brain is so rotted you will believe anything they tell you,,

and even if they had been you aint getting our guns without killing us first,,

OH WAIT,, is that what you mean, youre going to kill people with guns so you can take them away??

I'd be happy to start with making it harder for NEW guns to get out into the wild. Then we can worry about the ones that are out there.

But then again, I am a Liberal, and not an authoritarian fascist piece of shit, that wants to establish a ruling class in Washington DC and rob the people of any power they may actually have.

Um, dude, your side is the one rounding up people for being the wrong skin color without probable cause. You want to ban women from using birth control you don't like, you want to ban gay people from getting married, and you want to ban transgenders from getting treatment.

Seems to me that if anyone is an authoritarian POS, it would be people on your side.

I just want to make sure we aren't selling guns to crazy people who want to shoot up schools.

The best I can say is that I understand you Joe, and we simply do not agree in regard to the limits our founders intended to place on the federal government in order for us to actually enjoy and exercise our liberties and freedom.

First, the Founders were a bunch of slave-rapists who shit in chamber pots. I much prefer living in a modern society with medicines and infrastructure and a lot more freedom than most people had in 1787.

Because something might have seemed like a "good idea" in 1787 doesn't make it a good idea now.

Guns don't prevent tyrannical governments.
Guns don't make your home any safer.

Now, I have no problem if you own a gun because you enjoy target shooting or hunting. But it's kind of absurd to make it so easy to get one that someone with clear mental problems can fill out a piece of paper and no one checks to see if he won't do soemthing crazy.

 

[JoeB131]

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

"WELL-REGULATED MILITIA"

 

[Bitterhook]

"SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"

I see no room for any law restricting gun rights

but you two faced mindless america hating cock suckers will find what fits your political narrative in anything,,

The amendment to our state constitutions doesn't restrict gun rights at all and verifies what some have trouble understanding about "shall not be infringed" in the US Constitution.

I have no intent to take it to the US Supreme Court, so I can rob the peoples' power and tell people in other states what they should do.

If you are wondering why we did it, it is so we can take it to the Supreme Court if the federal government ever decides to violate the US Constitution, and on the grounds of state's rights as afforded in the US Constitution. It was also added to help the people of our state understand that our state was not going to making up a bunch of gun restrictions as some states have.

The only problem it encountered and that was challenged, was whether or not the state amendment gave convicted criminals the right to own firearms in our state. The State Supreme Court upheld the amendment but indicated that allowing convicted felons to own firearms would violate federal law, and so that was settled.

 

[Bitterhook]

I'd be happy to start with making it harder for NEW guns to get out into the wild. Then we can worry about the ones that are out there.




Um, dude, your side is the one rounding up people for being the wrong skin color without probable cause. You want to ban women from using birth control you don't like, you want to ban gay people from getting married, and you want to ban transgenders from getting treatment.

Seems to me that if anyone is an authoritarian POS, it would be people on your side.

I just want to make sure we aren't selling guns to crazy people who want to shoot up schools.



First, the Founders were a bunch of slave-rapists who shit in chamber pots. I much prefer living in a modern society with medicines and infrastructure and a lot more freedom than most people had in 1787.

Because something might have seemed like a "good idea" in 1787 doesn't make it a good idea now.

Guns don't prevent tyrannical governments.
Guns don't make your home any safer.

Now, I have no problem if you own a gun because you enjoy target shooting or hunting. But it's kind of absurd to make it so easy to get one that someone with clear mental problems can fill out a piece of paper and no one checks to see if he won't do soemthing crazy.

I said I understand you Joe, and I am saying that I don't give a **** what you desire if it involves empowering the federal government to abandon our founding principles, establish a ruling class in Washington DC, and rob the states and the people of the power the US Constitution grants us.

But then again, I am a Liberal, it not that ******* hard to understand either.

 

[progressive hunter]

I'd be happy to start with making it harder for NEW guns to get out into the wild. Then we can worry about the ones that are out there.




Um, dude, your side is the one rounding up people for being the wrong skin color without probable cause. You want to ban women from using birth control you don't like, you want to ban gay people from getting married, and you want to ban transgenders from getting treatment.

Seems to me that if anyone is an authoritarian POS, it would be people on your side.

I just want to make sure we aren't selling guns to crazy people who want to shoot up schools.



First, the Founders were a bunch of slave-rapists who shit in chamber pots. I much prefer living in a modern society with medicines and infrastructure and a lot more freedom than most people had in 1787.

Because something might have seemed like a "good idea" in 1787 doesn't make it a good idea now.

Guns don't prevent tyrannical governments.
Guns don't make your home any safer.

Now, I have no problem if you own a gun because you enjoy target shooting or hunting. But it's kind of absurd to make it so easy to get one that someone with clear mental problems can fill out a piece of paper and no one checks to see if he won't do soemthing crazy.

change the constitution first and you can have anything you want,,

 

[progressive hunter]

"WELL-REGULATED MILITIA"

it clearly says the right of the people not well regulated militia,,

Second Amendment​

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.

 

[progressive hunter]

The amendment to our state constitutions doesn't restrict gun rights at all and verifies what some have trouble understanding about "shall not be infringed" in the US Constitution.

I have no intent to take it to the US Supreme Court, so I can rob the peoples' power and tell people in other states what they should do.

If you are wondering why we did it, it is so we can take it to the Supreme Court if the federal government ever decides to violate the US Constitution, and on the grounds of state's rights as afforded in the US Constitution. It was also added to help the people of our state understand that our state was not going to making up a bunch of gun restrictions as some states have.

The only problem it encountered and that was challenged, was whether or not the state amendment gave convicted criminals the right to own firearms in our state. The State Supreme Court upheld the amendment but indicated that allowing convicted felons to own firearms would violate federal law, and so that was settled.

could you post that amendment??

 

[Bitterhook]

change the constitution first and you can have anything you want,,

As long as it goes through the process required in the US Constitution and is ratified by the people.
That's why the authoritarians like to use the courts, because there is less chance they could get it past the people.

 

[progressive hunter]

As long as it goes through the process required in the US Constitution and is ratified by the people.
That's why the authoritarians like to use the courts, because there is less chance they could get it past the people.

not if it infringes on the peoples rights to keep and bear arms,,
if so it would require the repeal of the 2nd A first,,

are you going to post it or not

 

[JoeB131]

I said I understand you Joe, and I am saying that I don't give a **** what you desire if it involves empowering the federal government to abandon our founding principles, establish a ruling class in Washington DC, and rob the states and the people of the power the US Constitution grants us.

But then again, I am a Liberal, it not that ******* hard to understand either.

Um, guy, you are not a liberal.

Guns should be regulated like any other consumer product.

 

[progressive hunter]

Um, guy, you are not a liberal.

Guns should be regulated like any other consumer product.

View attachment 1198818

you will have to change the constitution first before you get your fascist dream

 

[progressive hunter]

Um, guy, you are not a liberal.

Guns should be regulated like any other consumer product.

View attachment 1198818

what exactly do you mean by regulated??
as originally intended that was available for all, well supplied and in good working order,,

 

[Bitterhook]

could you post that amendment??

Article 1: Section 11 of our state constitution
(Article I is our state's Declaration of Rights)

§752. Legislative findings(1) The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution provides that, "[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".

(2) Article I, Section 11 of the [state] Constitution provides that "The right of each citizen to keep and bear arms is fundamental and shall not be infringed. Any restriction on this right shall be subject to strict scrutiny."

 

[Bitterhook]

Um, guy, you are not a liberal.

Guns should be regulated like any other consumer product.

View attachment 1198818

You don't know what a Liberal is, and probably because you have been a Progressive Liberal for a far too long.

 

[Bitterhook]

not if it infringes on the peoples rights to keep and bear arms,,
if so it would require the repeal of the 2nd A first,,

are you going to post it or not

**** it, I had to look it up, it passed in 2012, and I don't keep it posted on my nightstand.
Is there anything else you would like to not understand, and get your panties in a wad about?

 

[progressive hunter]

**** it, I had to look it up, it passed in 2012, and I don't keep it posted on my nightstand.
Is there anything else you would like to not understand, and get your panties in a wad about?

how can I not understand it if you wont post it??

as I said,, any law that restricts in any way is in violation of the 2nd amendment of the US

 

[Bitterhook]

how can I not understand it if you wont post it??

Because I ******* told you what it said in the first post, and the only problem you were having was pretending it could possibly mean something different when you read it.

It didn't, so there.