Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate

I use "Nazi" to describe members of the National Socialist Democrat Workers Party, or just "democrats" who promote the democrat Reich with the use of the scapegoat "Der Juden" (the whites) to focus hatred against a particular race. You who advocate collectivist totalitarianism where the means of production are controlled by the state, where opposition to your Reich is forcibly suppressed by locking those who protest your Reich in Gulags for nearly a year for offenses like trespassing. Where children are forced into the Biden Youth and taught to hate themselves, their culture, and their families based on their skin color.
Another typical crazy trump supporter who thinks he can personally change the meaning of words. "Der Juden" means the Jews, dumb ass. I'm sure your silly diatribe would receive applause at one of your Proud Boys meetings, but it is total bullshit, and 100% wrong.
 
Another typical crazy trump supporter who thinks he can personally change the meaning of words. "Der Juden" means the Jews, dumb ass. I'm sure your silly diatribe would receive applause at one of your Proud Boys meetings, but it is total bullshit, and 100% wrong.

You are a psychopath. You have spent your last 10 posts brazenly and blatantly lying in some insane belief that somehow you can disarm your intended victims with your utterly absurd lies.

Stupid fuck, democrats have made White's the new Jews.

You are really quite insane.
 
Lying fucking retard....

Armed gun nuts on the street who have not, and can not pass a background check are called "felons," fuckwad.
In many cases you are correct. Plenty of gun nuts are either felons or want to make it easier for felons to get guns. Why else would they want it to remain legal for individuals to sell guns without a background check?
 
Straw buyers are illegal, a federal felony. So you want to pass more laws to make it illegal to break existing laws that already make this illegal?

You are one DUMB assed Nazi, Bulldyke.


He is doing his best to lie, and say that people selling their private guns are the ones arming criminals...versus the truth....straw buyers who knowingly supply criminals with guns for money......
 
You are a psychopath. You have spent your last 10 posts brazenly and blatantly lying in some insane belief that somehow you can disarm your intended victims with your utterly absurd lies.

Stupid fuck, democrats have made White's the new Jews.

You are really quite insane.
You still think you can personally change the meaning of words at will. You're starting out with that indication of insanity against you. Please point out any specific lies you think I might have told. You do understand that individual sellers/straw buyers are not obligated to make any effort to know if the recipient of their gun is allowed to have a gun, don't you?
 
Stupid fuck, carrying a concealed weapon illegally is. well ILLEGAL you fucking retard.
That's true, but selling or giving a gun to a felon isn't, and individuals are not even required to find out if the recipient is allowed to have it.
 
He is doing his best to lie, and say that people selling their private guns are the ones arming criminals...versus the truth....straw buyers who knowingly supply criminals with guns for money......
Are you saying no individual seller has ever sold a gun to a felon? How could you know that? The individual seller is under no obligation to know or find out whether the recipient is a felon.
 
:rofl:

Pathological liar vomits WHAT?

:lmao:

You're a fucking psychopath with no grip on reality.



Are you lying, or just so insane that you believe the idiocy you shit out?
Please point to the law that requires an individual seller to know or check whether the recipient is a felon or otherwise not allowed to have a gun.
 
Well.....there's ranchers on our borders that need guns to protect their lives and their livestock from illegals, drug cartels, and Cougars.
Then there's the BLM and ANTIFA assholes that try to pull you out of your car and beat you to death.
Then there's the massive increase in violent crime in cities like NYC, Chicago, and anywhere that Democrats run the show.

It's not cowardice.....it's common-sense.
Actually, it’s Americans of color – Asian Americans in particular – who need to be armed to protect themselves from the violent, lawless right.

Indeed, hateful bigoted and racist conservatives are far more likely to commit acts of violence and domestic terrorism.
 
Ah, the leftist dream...total abolition of our civil rights.

Sorry fascist, it's not happening.
And this thread is proving that meaningful, constructive, good faith debate concerning the Second Amendment, its meaning, and its application as a matter of regulatory law is indeed impossible.

Both liberals and conservatives have nothing but contempt for Heller – the former because the Court rejected the collective right argument, the latter because the Court reaffirmed the fact that the Second Amendment right is not unlimited, that it is subject to restrictions and regulation by government consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.
 
Actually, it’s Americans of color – Asian Americans in particular – who need to be armed to protect themselves from the violent, lawless right.

Indeed, hateful bigoted and racist conservatives are far more likely to commit acts of violence and domestic terrorism.
I don't agree.
Seems as soon as it started floating around that COVID came from China....Asians were being attack by blacks all over the country. So it appears hateful bigoted and racist Democrats were indeed committing acts of violence.
 
Does anyone care to discuss the article discussed in the OP?
In a way, they are.

Again, this thread is demonstrating that the gun ‘debate’ has little to do with the Amendment or its case law.

That states are enacting measures unrelated to or not currently within the scope of the Second Amendment in accordance with the aspirational, political Second Amendment.
 
In a way, they are.

Again, this thread is demonstrating that the gun ‘debate’ has little to do with the Amendment or its case law.

That states are enacting measures unrelated to or not currently within the scope of the Second Amendment in accordance with the aspirational, political Second Amendment.

This "aspirational" 2ndA is nothing new; and it doesn't exist off on its own, without any connection or reliance on judicial opinion. The nation went 66 years with the lower federal courts perverting Miller and creating their various collective right interpretations in the lower federal courts. That misconstruction is what became the "judicial 2nd Amendment" the article speaks of . . . With none of it endorsed by SCOTUS or relying on SCOTUS precedent.

Nobody really believed that collective right "judicial 2nd Amendment" was the correct interpretation and settled law.

I sure know I had a blast back in the early 90's when I first started debating gun rights vs. gun control and I was definitely arguing the "aspirational 2nd Amendment" against lots of leftist anti-gun wackos arguing collective right theories. Their arguments were never consistent or compelling.

And then Heller happened and it was an affirmation.

All those years I always knew I was correct on the law and I know I'm correct now, arguing against the bullshit legal interpretations that the lower federal courts are putting out now, still misconstructing and twisting SCOTUS . . . The "judicial 2nd Amendment" is a zombie, walking around, not knowing it is dead and should be under 6 feet of dirt. The dumb theories making up this article's "judicial 2nd Amendment" have already been overruled, abrogated, it just needs to be buried.

So, is it really your position that the "judicial 2nd Amendment" is correct when it says AR-15's can be banned because the 4th Circuit says they are:


"convinced that the banned assault weapons and large-capacity magazines are among those arms that are “like” “M-16 rifles” — “weapons that are most useful in military service” — which the Heller Court singled out as being beyond the Second Amendment’s reach." -- Kolbe v. Hogan, 849 F.3d 114 (4th Cir. 2017)


Of course the "aspirational 2nd Amendment" that follows Miller says "assault weapons" are absolutely protected by the 2nd Amendment.

I agree and I argue that has always been the correct interpretation. I'll tell you, I will take delight in rubbing your nose in the big piles of aspiration coming from the Court in the next couple years.

.
 
Last edited:
Not what I said. Guns don't make you manly or not manly. I have guns. Being a gun nut who thinks he has to be armed 24/7 indicates cowardice.
I would disagree here. More rabid paranoia than cowardice. A gun nut can be physically brave, but still believe that there's always someone lurking behind a bush or down a dark alley ready to kill them at a moments notice. Feeding that form of paranoia is used effectively by the gun manufacturing industry to generate their profits.
 

Forum List

Back
Top