# If republicans want the 2nd amendment to work like the 1st, ANYONE should be able to buy a gun



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Children

Those with mental disabilities

Convicted felons

Of course, since it’s already illegal for felons and kids to buy guns from a licensed business, we already have gun control laws. Why would it be wrong or unconstitutional to make more gun control laws? We already have some.

Or should we just treat it like the 1st amendment and let any of those people buy guns?


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...


who said they want it to be like that?....


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 10, 2022)

1st Amendment rights are not absolute either.
Try yelling "BOMB" on a plane & see how that works out.


Stopping dangerous lunatics from getting guns is the same.
Trying to strip 2A rights based on such feeble arguments is pretty pathetic


----------



## Sunni Man (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children Those with mental disabilities
> Convicted felons Of course, since it’s already illegal for felons and kids to buy guns from a licensed business, we already have gun control laws. Why would it be wrong or unconstitutional to make more gun control laws?
> Or should we just treat it like the 1st amendment and let any of those people buy guns?


----------



## MisterBeale (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...


Strawman for an OP eh?  How far do you expect to go with this?


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> 1st Amendment rights are not absolute either.
> Try yelling "BOMB" on a plane & see how that works out.
> 
> 
> ...


But since we already have gun control laws, we might as well create more. Your subjective view of more laws does not matter. It has a legal precedent therefore we can create more.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...


So this must mean that the 1st Amendment means anyone can say whatever they want, right? But we both know that is not entirely true, don’t we?


----------



## JGalt (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...



Children, those with mental disabilities, and convicted felons can already get guns. It's not because we want them to, it's because you assholes don't enforce the laws that are already on the books.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> So this must mean that the 1st Amendment means anyone can say whatever they want, right? But we both know that is not entirely true, don’t we?


The point of the first amendment is that you cannot be charged with a crime for your speech. That’s all it boils down to.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

JGalt said:


> Children, those with mental disabilities, and convicted felons can already get guns. It's not because we want them to, it's because you assholes don't enforce the laws that are already on the books.


Lol so you’re saying these three types of people buy guns all the time?


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> who said they want it to be like that?....


They don’t. It just stands to reason that it wouldn’t be unconstitutional to create more gun control laws.


----------



## Maxdeath (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...


Well that was about as well thought out as a pig doing calculus.
Make bomb threats against the White House, Yell fire in a crowded theater. Threaten to kill someone. Every thing has limits. The first amendment is no different. There are limits to it as well.
We have rules and regulations for reasons. Most are there for common sense.


----------



## Leweman (Jul 10, 2022)

The 1st seems to be pretty restrictive these days.


----------



## BlackSand (Jul 10, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> 1st Amendment rights are not absolute either.
> Try yelling "BOMB" on a plane & see how that works out.


.

Just like the _"fire in theater"_ argument, it is not a very good comparison.

If one gets in trouble with the law, it has nothing to do with what they said.
They will be charged with the crime of inciting a riot or endangering public safety.

It's not really a First Amendment issue, and statutes addressing the crimes are not predicated by what the person says ...
only the results and consequences of their saying it.

In comparison to the Second Amendment, it is much the same way.
Statutes already address murder, armed robbery, aggravated assault and even unlawful discharge of a firearm.

.​


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Maxdeath said:


> Well that was about as well thought out as a pig doing calculus.
> Make bomb threats against the White House, Yell fire in a crowded theater. Threaten to kill someone. Every thing has limits. The first amendment is no different. There are limits to it as well.
> We have rules and regulations for reasons. Most are there for common sense.


And since the first and second already have limitations, it would not be unconstitutional to create more gun control laws.


----------



## JGalt (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol so you’re saying these three types of people buy guns all the time?



More than they should, especially the convicted felons and nutcases. But your liberal prosecutors won't lock them up, and your liberalized mental health system just gives them drugs and sends them home.

Until you start enforcing the existing laws and impressing on people that there are consequences to their actions, you're going to see nothing but more criminal behavior.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

JGalt said:


> More than they should, especially the convicted felons and nutcases. But your liberal prosecutors won't lock them up, and your liberalized mental health system just gives them drugs and sends them home.
> 
> Until you start enforcing the existing laws and impressing on people that there are consequences to their actions, you're going to see nothing but more criminal behavior.


lol who is more likely to not enforce gun control laws: liberals or 2nd amendment idiot nut jobs? 

It’s the latter.


----------



## miketx (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...


Never stops lying, ever.


----------



## Leweman (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> lol who is more likely to not enforce gun control laws: liberals or 2nd amendment idiot nut jobs?
> 
> It’s the latter.


Seems to be the opposite.  Feel free to prove otherwise though.


----------



## miketx (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> lol who is more likely to not enforce gun control laws: liberals or 2nd amendment idiot nut jobs?
> 
> It’s the latter.


Liar, it's all over the news, you vermin don't enforce them. I mean, what makes scum like this no good loser lie constantly?


----------



## pknopp (Jul 10, 2022)

If one truly believes this was little more than a troll post you know how one replies to it?


 You don't,


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Leweman said:


> Seems to be the opposite.  Feel free to prove otherwise though.


You’re basing this off nothing.


----------



## night_son (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But since we already have gun control laws, we might as well create more. Your subjective view of more laws does not matter. It has a legal precedent therefore we can create more.



According to the recent Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, ALL new and previous gun control efforts MUST meet a historical test to determine if there was a tradition of similar gun control laws at the time the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. Therefore, the test for constitutionality of new gun control laws has been set in stone, for the time being, and your speculation is hypothetical or meaningless.


----------



## miketx (Jul 10, 2022)

pknopp said:


> If one truly believes this was little more than a troll post you know how one replies to it?
> 
> 
> You don't,


Never stops spewing BS.


----------



## Leweman (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> You’re basing this off nothing.


Reality is nothing?  Weird.


----------



## Maxdeath (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> And since the first and second already have limitations, it would not be unconstitutional to create more gun control laws.


you seem to have missed TWO WORDS in that post that are very important. COMMON SENSE. Those two words are very important. 
You want to have more gun laws why not limit speech? Why not make it against the law to say two? Why not make it against the law to say car or boat? 
The reason is those two words you do not seem to understand. COMMON SENSE.


----------



## night_son (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...



You can philosophize the issue until the end of time. The Supreme Court has spoken. Soon just about every single gun control law on the books will be repealed or terminated, unless said piece of gun control law existed in 1791. Truth be told I can't think of a single gun control law that did exist 231 years ago. Therefore, no historical precedent or tradition means no gun control. Period.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

night_son said:


> According to the recent Supreme Court ruling in New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen, ALL new and previous gun control efforts MUST meet a historical test to determine if there was a tradition of similar gun control laws at the time the Second Amendment was ratified in 1791. Therefore, the test for constitutionality of new gun control laws has been set in stone, for the time being, and your speculation is hypothetical or meaningless.


Lol I love how you idiots cherry pick the cases you like and call the ones you don’t like “liberal”. The courts ruled Biden won legitimately but that didn’t stop you idiots from whining about it.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Maxdeath said:


> you seem to have missed TWO WORDS in that post that are very important. COMMON SENSE. Those two words are very important.
> You want to have more gun laws why not limit speech? Why not make it against the law to say two? Why not make it against the law to say car or boat?
> The reason is those two words you do not seem to understand. COMMON SENSE.


Common sense is subjective whether you like it or not. I think it’s common sense to make semi-automatic firearms illegal.


----------



## night_son (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol I love how you idiots cherry pick the cases you like and call the ones you don’t like “liberal”. The courts ruled Biden won legitimately but that didn’t stop you idiots from whining about it.



I am not completely unreasonable, Billy. You could say the same thing about Trump supporters discussing whether or not he legitimately lost the 2020 election—that such talk is nothing more than philosophical speculation—and you'd be right all day long. The Supreme Court has spoken, Biden is president, so that's set in stone as well, for the time being.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

night_son said:


> You can philosophize the issue until the end of time. The Supreme Court has spoken. Soon just about every single gun control law on the books will be repealed or terminated, unless said piece of gun control law existed in 1791. Truth be told I can't think of a single gun control law that did exist 231 years ago. Therefore, no historical precedent or tradition means no gun control. Period.


So kids of any age should be able to buy and own firearms?


----------



## Doc7505 (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But since we already have gun control laws, we might as well create more. Your subjective view of more laws does not matter. It has a legal precedent therefore we can create more.



~~~~~~
If the previous laws were enforced, there would not be so called need to create more.


----------



## Leweman (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> So kids of any age should be able to buy and own firearms?


Just the ones old enough that Biden would bang them, so no one over the age of 12.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Leweman said:


> Just the ones old enough that Biden would bang them, so no one over the age of 12.


It’s pretty gross that is where your mind went


----------



## Leweman (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> It’s pretty gross that is where your mind went


I didn't vote for him.


----------



## night_son (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> So kids of any age should be able to buy and own firearms?



On their own? Of course not. That being said, I started shooting in elementary school at cub scout camp and hunting squirrel with my grandfather. At age ten I took and passed the state hunter safety course and went deer hunting that year with my father. I absolutely support teaching kids to shoot and hunt responsibly. The history of our country is inseparably intertwined with the centuries old tradition of children learning to shoot and hunt and defend the homestead, if necessary. You might not like American gun culture but it's not going anywhere either.


----------



## Resnic (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...




Try telling a person for an interview "we don't hire nwords".

Or saying you'll kill the president.

Or infact you could be like Jordan Peterson that is banned from Twitter for criticizing that a woman pretending to be a man isn't really a man.

What about the people "cancelled" for speaking their mind, fired from their job, and so on?

The general who mocked jill Biden that was suspended from the army meanwhile it's ok to mock and call for action against trump while he was the sitting president and against his family and mocked them?

What about the parents labeled as terrorists for speaking out about what their school is teaching their kids?

Mentally ill people and felons don't have the same rights and privileges as most do. You know that already. It's been working fine until the last couple of years until our society went to shit. 

The laws and rules work, we have a couple hundred years proof of that in America.

We need to reform our society and return to a better society that was stronger, more responsible and of better quality.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

night_son said:


> On their own? Of course not. That being said, I started shooting in elementary school at cub scout camp and hunting squirrel with my grandfather. At age ten I took and passed the state hunter safety course and went deer hunting that year with my father. I absolutely support teaching kids to shoot and hunt responsibly. The history of our country is inseparably intertwined with the centuries old tradition of children learning to shoot and hunt and defend the homestead, if necessary. You might not like American gun culture but it's not going anywhere either.


Well you may be opposed to the idea of kids buying guns on their own, but it is still a gun control measure none the less.


----------



## Leweman (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Well you may be opposed to the idea of kids buying guns on their own, but it is still a gun control measure none the less.


Parental permission would be required.  Like it should be with everything.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Resnic said:


> Try telling a person for an interview "we don't hire nwords".
> 
> Or saying you'll kill the president.
> 
> ...


Yep, both amendments have limitations therefore creating more would be constitutional.

Of course you’re still wrong about most of these examples when it comes to free speech. The first amendment simply ensures you can’t be charged with a crime for your speech. That means getting fired from your job for speech is not illegal.


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...


You are very ignorant about others and what they believe, try educating yourself.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Papageorgio said:


> You are very ignorant about others and what they believe, try educating yourself.


Well since we agree on those gun control measures, let’s make more! Apparently that would not be unconstitutional.


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But since we already have gun control laws, we might as well create more. Your subjective view of more laws does not matter. It has a legal precedent therefore we can create more.


Not really. In fact, some of the laws on the books already are being overturned.
The 1st Amendment specifically says Congress can make no laws limiting speech it was intended to protect, speaking out against the govt.
The 2A does not allow infringement on the right to keep & bear arms to law abiding citizens & it is not limited to Congress.
Nice try proggy


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...


Such lazy, garbage reasoning. If that were true, we'd be asking to have our guns taken away from us, just like our speech.

I'm going to come out and say it bluntly: Billy, you're being stupid. On purpose.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> Not really. In fact, some of the laws on the books already are being overturned.
> The 1st Amendment specifically says Congress can make no laws limiting speech it was intended to protect, speaking out against the govt.
> The 2A does not allow infringement on the right to keep & bear arms to law abiding citizens & it is not limited to Congress.
> Nice try proggy


How do you know the 2nd amendment means that? It certainly doesn’t say that. It also says nothing about kids but we still make it illegal for them to buy them.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

TemplarKormac said:


> Such lazy, garbage reasoning. If that were true, we'd be asking to have our guns taken away from us, just like our speech.
> 
> I'm going to come out and say it bluntly: Billy, you're being stupid. On purpose.


Leave it you TK to miss the obvious point lol.


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> lol who is more likely to not enforce gun control laws: liberals or 2nd amendment idiot nut jobs?
> 
> It’s the latter.


First, there are no actual liberals in Dem run cities. You are all regressives & calling you liberals is an insult to real liberals.

How come Chicago has so many mass murders & shootings if the proglodytes in charge are enforcing all the strict gun laws?
How did that last insane lefty tranny get his guns if the red flag laws were followed?

Progs let them go because they want the chaos, death & body counts for a narrative.
And you sheeple eat it up


----------



## theHawk (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...


You reek of desperation.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> First, there are no actual liberals in Dem run cities. You are all regressives & calling you liberals is an insult to real liberals.
> 
> How come Chicago has so many mass murders & shootings if the proglodytes in charge are enforcing all the strict gun laws?
> How did that last insane lefty tranny get his guns if the red flag laws were followed?
> ...


Prior to the pandemic and nationwide spike in violence, California’s gun deaths were below the national average and way below Texas’s average. It was like that for years. Also, it’s pretty stupid you don’t understand how cities work anyway. Obviously there is going to be more crime in cities vs rural areas. You do get that basic logic right?


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

theHawk said:


> You reek of desperation.


Desperation for what? Lol that doesn’t make any sense.


----------



## Fang (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...



The most ridiculous comparison I‘ve ever read. Free speech has limits. People are getting shot in Chicago everyday, yet no one is asking for more gun laws there. Why?


----------



## TemplarKormac (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Leave it you TK to miss the obvious point lol.


There is no 'obvious point' with you, just points you try to make when your first point is blown out of the water.


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> How do you know the 2nd amendment means that? It certainly doesn’t say that. It also says nothing about kids but we still make it illegal for them to buy them.


Because unlike modern regressives, our Founding Fathers & ancestors had common sense back when it was still common.
They naturally assumed common sense would remain that.

Obviously, they didn't foresee the rise of lefty collectivist ideology indoctrinating the sheeple & the suffocation of common sense.

And making the case that denying children guns means you can pass "common sense" regulations on the rest of us is a strawman argument.
Besides, I gave my kids guns well before they were 18 & showed them how to use them properly. 
Guess what? They are just fine & their guns didn't kill anyone! 
Shocking!!
I've got no problem if others do the same as long as the kid ain't a psycho.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Fang said:


> The most ridiculous comparison I‘ve ever read. Free speech has limits. People are getting shot in Chicago everyday, yet no one is asking for more gun laws there. Why?


Free speech has very few limits, but since we agree it has some number of limits, why would it be unconstitutional to create more gun control laws for the 2nd?


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Prior to the pandemic and nationwide spike in violence, California’s gun deaths were below the national average and way below Texas’s average. It was like that for years. Also, it’s pretty stupid you don’t understand how cities work anyway. Obviously there is going to be more crime in cities vs rural areas. You do get that basic logic right?


Is there a point to your rambling or are you just role playing Captain Obvious?

So prior to the dempanic & lefties attacking the cities, everything was just great in proggy world?   

A lefty "social democrat" calling anyone stupid is so rich in irony I could make a sword


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Free speech has very few limits, but since we agree it has some number of limits, why would it be unconstitutional to create more gun control laws for the 2nd?


What limits on speech have come from Congress?


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> Because unlike modern regressives, our Founding Fathers & ancestors had common sense back when it was still common.
> They naturally assumed common sense would remain that.
> 
> Obviously, they didn't foresee the rise of lefty collectivist ideology indoctrinating the sheeple & the suffocation of common sense.
> ...


Lol who the fuck cares what you taught your children? It’s still illegal for them to buy guns. Since we already have gun control laws, we can create more. The precedent already exists. 

You’re welcome.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...


/——/ You understand neither the 1st or 2nd Amendments.


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol who the fuck cares what you taught your children? It’s still illegal for them to buy guns. Since we already have gun control laws, we can create more. The precedent already exists.
> 
> You’re welcome.


No, the precedents are being overturned.

Like I said, equating a child getting a gun with an adults right to keep & bear arms is a strawman argument.
It won't work so you better switch to your next delusional argument.
Guess what? We won't be getting rid of any of our guns because we don't have to.
We will also defend ourselves from tyranny because we have that right & ability as well.

Sorry if that makes you wet yourself


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...



We have about 20,000 of them now….so how many more do we need?

The important one?

You cant commit a crime with a gun.

If you are a convicted felon you can’t have a gun.

On that one we could adjust it but that is another debate


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 10, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ You understand neither the 1st or 2nd Amendments.


He understands very little outside buying plastic sheets was a wise investment.
I imagine he saves hundred$ a month


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> And since the first and second already have limitations, it would not be unconstitutional to create more gun control laws.



Again, with about 20,000 on the books why do we need more?


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——/ You understand neither the 1st or 2nd Amendments.


No, you just can’t explain why my logic is incorrect.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> No, the precedents are being overturned.
> 
> Like I said, equating a child getting a gun with an adults right to keep & bear arms is a strawman argument.
> It won't work so you better switch to your next delusional argument.
> ...


Lol calling it a straw man argument over and over does not make it one. Kids are not mentioned In the 2nd amendment. We still created laws to bar them from having guns. At the same time, kids have all the freedom of speech protections we have. What precedents are being overturned? Kids being able to buy guns? Nope that’s not happening.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

2aguy said:


> We have about 20,000 of them now….so how many more do we need?
> 
> The important one?
> 
> ...


Yeah and we can create more. Why not?


----------



## Maxdeath (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Common sense is subjective whether you like it or not. I think it’s common sense to make semi-automatic firearms illegal.


There is your problem. Most people have common sense you seem to lack it


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> The point of the first amendment is that you cannot be charged with a crime for your speech. That’s all it boils down to.



But as I said, that’s not entirely true, is it?

Our right to free speech is being infringed by big tech and the media. While this is not government sponsored or sanctioned, the liberal media and social media make it virtually impossible to express certain opinions without undue, unfair and unjust reactions. Read: cancel culture.

So, do we truly have free speech in this country in every way that matters? No. The Constitution protects us from the government but apparently many on the left and the media don’t view the right to free speech as a sound principle to be adhered to in any context. Rather they simply view it as a protection for them but that it shouldn’t apply to those who disagree with them.

The point of all this is that there are limits to free speech. Ergo, it makes sense to impose cerain limits on the right to bear arms.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Yeah and we can create more. Why not?



Because they cause an undo burden on the exercise of the Right.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Ghost of a Rider said:


> But as I said, that’s not entirely true, is it?
> 
> Our right to free speech is being infringed by big tech and the media. While this is not government sponsored or sanctioned, the liberal media and social media make it virtually impossible to express certain opinions without undue, unfair and unjust reactions. Read: cancel culture.
> 
> ...


Lol right and that justifies it being legal to add more gun control laws. Now you’re catching on!


----------



## johngaltshrugged (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol calling it a straw man argument over and over does not make it one. Kids are not mentioned In the 2nd amendment. We still created laws to bar them from having guns. At the same time, kids have all the freedom of speech protections we have. What precedents are being overturned? Kids being able to buy guns? Nope that’s not happening.


Yes it does. Equating the people right to own & bear arms with children buying guns is exactly what a strawman argument is all about.
You take something that might seem similar on the surface but isn't at all on any inspection & try to use it as an excuse to push an agenda.
It is a false equivalency & I think you know that


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> No, you just can’t explain why my logic is incorrect.


/———/ First of all, no one said they should be the same. Secondly, the 1st Amendment puts restrictions on Congress. Citizens have restrictions on speech. You can openly criticize the Government, but you can not slander someone, or lie under oath, or yell fire in a theater if there is no fire. An employer can restrict your speech too. 

The 2nd Amendment has restrictions on the types of arms we can have.

So your wish has been granted.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

johngaltshrugged said:


> Yes it does. Equating the people right to own & bear arms with children buying guns is exactly what a strawman argument is all about.
> You take something that might seem similar on the surface but isn't at all on any inspection & try to use it as an excuse to push an agenda.
> It is a false equivalency & I think you know that
> 
> View attachment 668738


So what you’re saying is that kids are not people? Wow. Weird.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /———/ First of all, no one said they should be the same. Secondly, the 1st Amendment puts restrictions on Congress. Citizens have restrictions on speech. You can openly criticize the Government, but you can not slander someone, or lie under oath, or yell fire in a theater if there is no fire. An employer can restrict your speech too.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment has restrictions on the types of arms we can have.
> 
> So your wish has been granted.


Yeah and using all this logic, it would be constitutional to create more gun control laws.


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Yeah and using all this logic, it would be constitutional to create more gun control laws.


/——-/ No gun grabber, it won’t. And you still don’t understand the Amendments.


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 10, 2022)

MisterBeale said:


> Strawman for an OP eh?  How far do you expect to go with this?


It's just another one of Billy's strawman arguments. He is such a fucking low IQ idiot that he presents a strawman argument in most of the threads he starts and is seemingly oblivious that a strawman argument is a logical fallacy. He's too fucking stupid even realize that he's stupid.


----------



## Ghost of a Rider (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol right and that justifies it being legal to add more gun control laws. Now you’re catching on!


I never said anything against the idea of more gun control laws. I was simply pointing out that yours was not an apt comparison of the two amendments since we DO have certain limitations to free speech and therefore the comparison was not applicable.

I have no problem with common sense gun laws as long as they don’t ultimately infringe on the right to bear arms or are used as a precedent to impose ever more restrictive laws.


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> They don’t. It just stands to reason that it wouldn’t be unconstitutional to create more gun control laws.


more gun laws?....there are hundreds on the books now....when are they going to start enforcing them?...with the emphasis on enforcement...


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Cellblock2429 said:


> /——-/ No gun grabber, it won’t. And you still don’t understand the Amendments.


Uh but why if the amendment already has restrictions? Just because you personally oppose it, does not mean it wouldn’t be legal.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Muhammed said:


> It's just another one of Billy's strawman arguments. He is such a fucking low IQ idiot that he presents a strawman argument in most of the threads he starts and is seemingly oblivious that a strawman argument is a logical fallacy. He's too fucking stupid even realize that he's stupid.


You guys keep saying this but you have failed to explain how my logic js flawed lol


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...


You're Right.

We should treat it like the 1st.

All gun laws should be repealed.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Free speech has very few limits, but since we agree it has some number of limits, why would it be unconstitutional to create more gun control laws for the 2nd?


The 1st should have no government limits, period.  NO PRIOR RESTRAINT.

But, that's what you want.  Prior restraint.  Like taking away our ability to speak, because we _might_ say something you don't like, you want to take away another right because _might_ do something you don't like.  

How did I do?


----------



## Muhammed (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> You guys keep saying this but you have failed to explain how my logic js flawed lol


You just proved my point, dumbass.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> You're Right.
> 
> We should treat it like the 1st.
> 
> All gun laws should be repealed.


So to be clear, 5 year olds can walk into a gun store and be able to buy firearms?


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> The 1st should have no government limits, period.  NO PRIOR RESTRAINT.
> 
> But, that's what you want.  Prior restraint.  Like taking away our ability to speak, because we _might_ say something you don't like, you want to take away another right because _might_ do something you don't like.
> 
> How did I do?


Lol not sure what you’re talking about.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 10, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> more gun laws?....there are hundreds on the books now....when are they going to start enforcing them?...with the emphasis on enforcement...


Who is they?


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> Convicted felons
> 
> ...


Rationalizing without a license again Billy?


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Who is they?


self identifiers


----------



## westwall (Jul 10, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...





Ok


----------



## Papageorgio (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Well since we agree on those gun control measures, let’s make more! Apparently that would not be unconstitutional.


Again with the nonsense, let me know when you want to have an adult conversation, until then, take care.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> So to be clear, 5 year olds can walk into a gun store and be able to buy firearms?


So to be clear, five--year-olds do not have the right to free speech. Mama will shut that little bitch up.

Minors do not have full rights.  

Nice bullshit red herring.

Now you want to get into reality or do you want to keep talking fantasy?


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol not sure what you’re talking about.


You don't know what you're talking about most of the time. Why should you know what anyone else is saying?


----------



## marvin martian (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...



Wow, in one very short post, you proved that you're ignorant about the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and the Republican party. Impressive!


----------



## Harry Dresden (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Who is they?


the people who tell you and me were to shit.....


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 11, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So to be clear, five--year-olds do not have the right to free speech. Mama will shut that little bitch up.
> 
> Minors do not have full rights.
> 
> ...


Nope that isn’t how the first amendment works. The amendment just guarantees he can’t be charged with a crime. The same logic applies to adults. Adults can get fired from their jobs for their speech. The amendment does not mean speech doesn’t have consequences.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 11, 2022)

marvin martian said:


> Wow, in one very short post, you proved that you're ignorant about the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, and the Republican party. Impressive!


And yet you can’t explain how I am wrong.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Nope that isn’t how the first amendment works. The amendment just guarantees he can’t be charged with a crime. The same logic applies to adults. Adults can get fired from their jobs for their speech. The amendment does not mean speech doesn’t have consequences.


How did we get off on that tangent?

Government cannot interfere with free speech.

Government and also cannot interfere with the right to keep and bear arms.

Children do not have the rights to enter into contracts. The sale of a gun is a contract.

So what are you saying?


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 11, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> How did we get off on that tangent?
> 
> Government cannot interfere with free speech.
> 
> ...


Umm the government obviously isn’t involved when their mom tells kids to shut up.

Lol the sale of anything is a contract. Kids can buy candy obviously.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> *Umm* the government obviously isn’t involved when their mom tells kids to shut up.


First of all, you do not have to be a douchey snarky twat in every fucking reply you make.  It doesn't improve your shitty arguments.

Secondly, of course government isn't (or shouldn't be) involved in parents making parenting decisions.



Billy000 said:


> Lol the sale of anything is a contract.


Correct


Billy000 said:


> Kids can buy candy obviously.


And a parent can go back and rescind the sale.

There are obviously some serious liability issues with a gun store selling to minors, so that's about as far from reality as one can imagine.

But go ahead with your douchey twaty snark shit. It's winning for you.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 11, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> First of all, you do not have to be a douchey snarky twat in every fucking reply you make.  It doesn't improve your shitty arguments.
> 
> Secondly, of course government isn't (or shouldn't be) involved in parents making parenting decisions.
> 
> ...


I don’t think they wouid he able to rescind the sale if in this hypothetical a kid was able to buy a gun. Either way, you see the problem with kids buying guns. It’s better if the government can make sure kids don’t buy guns even though they do have freedom of speech. This is gun control therefore it has a legal precedent for more gun control laws.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> I don’t think they wouid he able to rescind the sale if in this hypothetical a kid was able to buy a gun. Either way, you see the problem with kids buying guns. It’s better if the government can make sure kids don’t buy guns even though they do have freedom of speech. This is gun control therefore it has a legal precedent for more gun control laws.


Do you think pot should be legal?


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 11, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Do you think pot should be legal?


Yes.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Yes.


So kids should be allowed to buy pot?


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 11, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So kids should be allowed to buy pot?


No they should not. The entire point I am trying to make to you is that because gun control laws currently exist, it would not be unconstitutional to come up with more. The 2nd amendment makes no mention of kids but we still have laws that bar them from buying guns.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> No they should not. The entire point I am trying to make to you is that because gun control laws currently exist, it would not be unconstitutional to come up with more. The 2nd amendment makes no mention of kids but we still have laws that bar them from buying guns.


So it is not unconstitutional to ban pot?


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 11, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> So it is not unconstitutional to ban pot?


It would be constitutional to ban pot. It would also be constitutional to not ban pot. The constitution makes no mention of pot. My personal feelings on the matter are irrelevant to this.


----------



## Flash (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Children
> 
> Those with mental disabilities
> 
> ...


What qualifications do you see in "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

If we are going to have any qualifications to it then the last thing we need are some Liberals setting those restrictions.  Because their agenda is not reasonable gun control laws but to do away with the right all together.

You can trust Liberals to be reasonable.  They are bat shit crazy.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> What qualifications do you see in "the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".
> 
> If we are going to have any qualifications to it then the last thing we need are some Liberals setting those restrictions.  Because their agenda is not reasonable gun control laws but to do away with the right all together.
> 
> You can trust Liberals to be reasonable.  They are bat shit crazy.


The democrat agenda has nothing to do with banning all guns.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> It would be constitutional to ban pot.


WRONG!!!

This is why we disagree.  

You don't understand the intent and limitations of the Federal Government.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> The democrat agenda has nothing to do with banning all guns.


BULL

FUCKING

SHIT

YOU

LIAR!!!!


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 11, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> BULL
> 
> FUCKING
> 
> ...


Name a democrat in office who wants to ban all guns completely.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 11, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> WRONG!!!
> 
> This is why we disagree.
> 
> You don't understand the intent and limitations of the Federal Government.


I mean we agree it should be legal, but I can’t think of a constitutional justification for or against it lol


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> I mean we agree it should be legal, but I can’t think of a constitutional justification for or against it lol


If there's no constitutional justification for it, the power is left of the states. See the 9th and 10th amendments.

There is a specific constitutional prohibition against the federal government exercising authority over arms.

With reasonable people, this is not even a debate.


----------



## Flash (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> The democrat agenda has nothing to do with banning all guns.


Bullshit.  You are hearing that from many Democrats now.

If not doing completely away then gutting it by banning the most popular and efective arms, restricting how they can be "bared" and putting significant restrictions on magazines and ammo and everything else.  Unreasonable infringements on the Constitutional rights.  Hell, those Democrat assholes in New York said that you could not ever carry (bare) an arm until the Supremes tolld them to knock off that shit last month.

All Lefest regimes want to do do away with the riht to keep and bare arms and the filthy Democrats are no different.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 11, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> If there's no constitutional justification for it, the power is left of the states. See the 9th and 10th amendments.
> 
> There is a specific constitutional prohibition against the federal government exercising authority over arms.
> 
> With reasonable people, this is not even a debate.


So states have the power to pass gun control laws? We’ve been down this road before….


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> Bullshit.  You are hearing that from many Democrats now.
> 
> If not doing completely away then gutting it by banning the most popular and efective arms, restricting how they can be "bared" and putting significant restrictions on magazines and ammo and everything else.  Unreasonable infringements on the Constitutional rights.  Hell, those Democrat assholes in New York said that you could not ever carry (bare) an arm until the Supremes tolld them to knock off that shit last month.
> 
> All Lefest regimes want to do do away with the riht to keep and bare arms and the filthy Democrats are no different.


Name the democrats in office who want to ban all guns.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> So states have the power to pass gun control laws? We’ve been down this road before….


They did...until the overly-broad, clumsy-ass 14th Amendment came in like a wrecking ball and fucked everything up.  Now NOBODY has authority.

Yes, we've been down this road and people keep getting it wrong.


----------



## Flash (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Name the democrats in office who want to ban all guns.


The Democrat pieces of shit in DC that said that Dick Heller couldn't even have a gun in his own home.

The Democrat shitheads in NY that said that nobody could enjoy their Consititonal rights to keep and bear arms without their permission and they don't give permission to anybody unless they are politically connected.

The Democrats assholes in Chicago that said Otis McDonald could not bear an arm for his own self protection in the most dangerous city in the US.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 11, 2022)

Flash said:


> The Democrat pieces of shit in DC that said that Dick Heller couldn't even have a gun in his own home.
> 
> The Democrat shitheads in NY that said that nobody could enjoy their Consititonal rights to keep and bear arms without their permission and they don't give permission to anybody unless they are politically connected.
> 
> The Democrats assholes in Chicago that said Otis McDonald could not bear an arm for his own self protection in the most dangerous city in the US.


Lol that second paragraph is such bullshit. No one fucking said that. Who cares if a democrat doesn’t own a gun? Of course you should know plenty of democrats in office own guns. You know that right?


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> The democrat agenda has nothing to do with banning all guns.




Yes...it does.


----------



## 2aguy (Jul 11, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Name the democrats in office who want to ban all guns.



Biden, obama, clintons, schumer, pelosi, AOC........the entire leadership of the democrat party.


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 11, 2022)

2aguy said:


> Biden, obama, clintons, schumer, pelosi, AOC........the entire leadership of the democrat party.


Nope none of them say that.


----------



## Flash (Jul 12, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol that second paragraph is such bullshit. No one fucking said that. Who cares if a democrat doesn’t own a gun? Of course you should know plenty of democrats in office own guns. You know that right?


You obviously didn't read the _Bruen_ decision.  The Democrat leadership in New York were extremely (emphasis on extremely) restrictive on who could have a "permit" to carry a weapon, which the Supreme Court found to be a major infringement on the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

The Court ordered them to have a reasonable "shall issue" or Constitutional carry system.

In addition to that the Court vacated decisions in several gun control cases that challenged magazines bans, assault weapons bans and other oppressive laws and told the lower courts to go back and reevaluate them under _Bruen._ 

All these onerous and unconstitutional laws have been passed in Democrat controlled areas.

This bullshit that you are trying to pull that somehow Democrats are not against the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms is nothing more than the typical Moon Bat denial of reality.


----------



## Flash (Jul 12, 2022)




----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 12, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Name the democrats in office who want to ban all guns.











						Mondaire Jones threatens court-packing, eliminating Senate filibuster to get tough new gun laws
					

Rep. Mondaire Jones said nothing should stand in the way of passing gun reforms, including the Senate filibuster and the Supreme Court.




					www.washingtontimes.com
				




Mondaire Jones​


			http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2022/06/02/dem_rep_mondaire_jones_we_will_abolish_the_filibuster_expand_the_supreme_court_if_gun_control_is_not_passed.html


----------



## Billy000 (Jul 12, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Mondaire Jones threatens court-packing, eliminating Senate filibuster to get tough new gun laws
> 
> 
> Rep. Mondaire Jones said nothing should stand in the way of passing gun reforms, including the Senate filibuster and the Supreme Court.
> ...


Lol nothing at all in this quote indicates he wants to ban all guns.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 12, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> Lol nothing at all in this quote indicates he wants to ban all guns.


When you say "all" guns, what you really mean is anything that's not a Fudd weapon.  Given that about 90% of all firearms are not Fudd weapons....yeah, you are trying to ban all guns.

Just fucking admit it.  Quit playing games.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Jul 12, 2022)

If you ban ANY guns, we will start a war.

Period.

Get used to the idea.


----------



## airplanemechanic (Sep 12, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But since we already have gun control laws, we might as well create more. Your subjective view of more laws does not matter. It has a legal precedent therefore we can create more.



You're right. 20,000 gun laws aren't enough. 

Let's pass just one more.


----------



## Papageorgio (Sep 12, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> But since we already have gun control laws, we might as well create more. Your subjective view of more laws does not matter. It has a legal precedent therefore we can create more.


How about making the current crime law tougher, longer sentences and enforcing them? That’s a novel approach.

We have so many laws now and law abiding gun owners follow them, so what is the point of more laws for those that do not follow the current laws, how does that help?


----------



## miketx (Sep 12, 2022)

Billy000 said:


> lol who is more likely to not enforce gun control laws: liberals or 2nd amendment idiot nut jobs?
> 
> It’s the latter.


All your lying ass has to do is watch the news and see democrats refusing laws.


----------



## miketx (Sep 12, 2022)

Harry Dresden said:


> who said they want it to be like that?....


Billie zero


----------



## Cellblock2429 (Sep 12, 2022)

Papageorgio said:


> How about making the current crime law tougher, longer sentences and enforcing them? That’s a novel approach.
> 
> We have so many laws now and law abiding gun owners follow them, so what is the point of more laws for those that do not follow the current laws, how does that help?


/----/ *"We have so many laws now and law abiding gun owners follow them, so what is the point of more laws for those that do not follow the current laws, how does that help?"*
democrats have learned throughout history, that you can't fill mass graves when the victims can shoot back.


----------

