# Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 31, 2021)

‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.

"Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."

Adam Winkler, a professor of law at the UCLA School of Law, also said the Second Amendment is losing its legal relevance in distinguishing lawful policies from unlawful ones as the gap between what he calls the "judicial Second Amendment” and the "aspirational Second Amendment" widens.

Winkler defines the "judicial Second Amendment" as how courts interpret the constitutional provision in their decisions, and the "aspirational Second Amendment" as how the amendment is used in political dialogue. The latter is "far more hostile to gun laws than the judicial one," he said -- and also more prevalent.

"The aspirational Second Amendment is overtaking the judicial Second Amendment in American law," he wrote in the Indiana Law Journal in 2018, a sentiment he repeated in a recent interview with ABC News. "State law is embracing such a robust, anti-regulatory view of the right to keep and bear arms that the judicial Second Amendment, at least as currently construed, seems likely to have less and less to say about the shape of America's gun laws."’









						Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate
					

In the bitter debate over gun control, battle lines are often drawn around the Second Amendment, with many in favor of gun rights pointing to it as the source of their constitutional authority to bear arms, and some in favor of tighter gun control disagreeing with that interpretation.  Joseph...




					www.yahoo.com
				




This is why meaningful, constructive, good faith debate concerning the Second Amendment, its meaning, and its application as a matter of regulatory law is impossible.

The judicial Second Amendment camp and the political Second Amendment camp will always be at odds, never finding consensus or agreement – with the former following Second Amendment jurisprudence as determined by the Supreme Court and the latter having nothing but contempt for the Court and its decisions concerning the Second Amendment.


----------



## Esdraelon (Oct 31, 2021)

"Aspirational"?  Come for them, you'll SEE how "aspirational" 2A is for Americans.  Punks. Cowards. Scum.


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 31, 2021)

ESDRAELON said:


> "Aspirational"?  Come for them, you'll SEE how "aspirational" 2A is for Americans.  Punks. Cowards. Scum.


Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 31, 2021)

"The Bill of Rights, _by its terms_, only applies to the federal government, but the Supreme Court, through a doctrine known as incorporation, has made almost all of its guarantees applicable against state and local governments as well. That's what the question was in McDonald," Blocher said. "But some states have chosen to go above and beyond what the court laid out." _ibid_

Another point of conflict between the two camps.

The judicial camp recognizes incorporation doctrine and the application of the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.

The political camp rejects incorporation doctrine but is inconsistent with its advocacy of “states’ rights” – advocating that the Supreme Court invalidate state measures such as assault weapon bans and universal background checks.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Oct 31, 2021)

What's going to allow gun control is that few of young men hunt or shoot these days. They're all playing video games.

58% of NRA membership is over retirement age. Give it another 20-30 years and gun rights won't disappear with a bang, they'll disappear with a whimper.


----------



## mudwhistle (Oct 31, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?


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.


----------



## Damaged Eagle (Oct 31, 2021)

What do we need more gun laws for if the courts won't enforce the ones on the books already?

*****SMILE*****


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 31, 2021)

‘It goes back to that widening gap between the judicial Second Amendment as the courts interpret it and the aspirational Second Amendment as used in politics, according to Winkler and Blocher.

"There's a difference between the Second Amendment as interpreted and applied by courts and the Second Amendment as it's invoked in political discussions. And for many gun rights advocates, the political version of the Second Amendment is quite a bit more gun protective than the Second Amendment as the Supreme Court and lower courts have applied it," he said.’ _ibid_

And it’s pointless to tell purveyors of the political/aspirational Second Amendment that although they are entitled to their opinions, those opinions are subjective, irrelevant and devoid of legal, Constitutional merit.

Only the judicial Second Amendment carries the force of Constitutional law, authorizing government to regulate firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.


----------



## progressive hunter (Oct 31, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.
> 
> "Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."
> 
> ...


your premise is a lie,,,

the 2nd is more relevant today than its been in 235 yrs,,


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 31, 2021)

‘In all 50 states, it is legal to carry a concealed handgun in public, subject to varying restrictions depending on the state, but at least 20 do not require permits for either open or concealed carry of firearms, with Texas becoming the latest to enact what advocates call "constitutional carry."

Permitless or "constitutional carry" is not something the Supreme Court's reading of the Second Amendment currently calls for.’ _ibid_

"Constitutional carry" is a prime example of the political Second Amendment – in that it’s a political contrivance having nothing to do with Second Amendment case law; indeed, requiring a permit to carry a concealed firearm is likewise Constitutional carry.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 31, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The judicial camp recognizes incorporation doctrine and the application of the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.


Right.   The anti-gun left doesn't seem to understand this -- they belive CA and NY and MD and HI aren't limited by the 2nd Amendment.


C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The political camp rejects incorporation doctrine but is inconsistent with its advocacy of “states’ rights” – advocating that the Supreme Court invalidate state measures such as assault weapon bans and universal background checks.


As you know the 'states' rights' premise does not in any way include the states having the right to violate the rights of the people, your statement, above, is a lie.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 31, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> 58% of NRA membership is over retirement age.


Prove this to be true.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Oct 31, 2021)

‘"It's a rallying cry. It's easy. It's a sound bite," she said. "But the Second Amendment gets thrown around politically in a way that's not based in law."

Blocher agreed and argued the Second Amendment debate is among the most partisan in the nation.

"The gun debate has gone far beyond judicial interpretations of the Second Amendment and these days has much more to do with personal, political and partisan identity," he said.’

True.

Indeed, the gun ‘debate’ has gone so far beyond judicial interpretations of the Amendment that those hostile to the case law use rhetoric having nothing to do with what the right protects or the intent of the Amendment.

Examples of this would be the wrongheaded notion that the Amendment ‘authorizes’ lawless armed rebellion against a Federal government perceived to have become ‘tyrannical.’

That private citizens who are members of a ‘militia’ have a right to possess weapons on par with the military – such as fully automatic rifles and carbines.

And that all regulatory measures are an ‘infringement’ although the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of those measures.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Oct 31, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And that all regulatory measures are an ‘infringement’ although the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of those measures.


If a "measure" has not been ruled constitutional by the court, how can you, with any honesty or acumen,  say it is constitutional?


----------



## BULLDOG (Oct 31, 2021)

mudwhistle said:


> 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.


I suspect most of the gun nut cowards here aren't ranchers, and have never had a real reason to fear being pulled out of their car, yet they  still whine about needing to be armed 24/7. Do you live in NYC  or Chicago? No. Gun nuts are just cowards. Admit it. What makes gun nuts so afraid to experience every day life without a gun strapped to their pansy ass?


----------



## toobfreak (Oct 31, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate​



There is no gun debate, except between leftists looking to disarm America.  They debate the gun as cause because they cannot debate the actual cause of violence which is progressivism upon society.


----------



## MisterBeale (Oct 31, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "The Bill of Rights, _by its terms_, only applies to the federal government, but the Supreme Court, through a doctrine known as incorporation, has made almost all of its guarantees applicable against state and local governments as well. That's what the question was in McDonald," Blocher said. "But some states have chosen to go above and beyond what the court laid out." _ibid_
> 
> Another point of conflict between the two camps.
> 
> ...



This is an interesting POV.

I wonder where the Federal government gets the right to regulate nation wide voting rights, civil rights, the right to abortion, etc. etc. if this is your standard then.

Should that be up to each and every state then?


----------



## Concerned American (Oct 31, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.
> 
> "Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."
> 
> ...


Only in you moron's minds is the second amendment irrelevant.  The fact that you posted this moronic thread speaks volumes as to the second amendment's relevance.  LOL.  Try again.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 1, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.
> 
> "Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."
> 
> ...



Utter bullshit that is projection and panic porn for leftists who see their grasp on unconstitutional laws slipping away.  

The 2nd Amendment was a non-entity, unenforceable on the states until 2010 and then went on a hiatus.

All the laws this twatwaffle is pissing and moaning about, from preemption (or not) to concealed carry (or not) to permitless carry (or not) were states enacting laws (or not) under the authority of their state constitutions in conformance to the RKBA as recognized and protected in their state constitutions (*or not*) . . .  It's no surprise the states with strict gun control are states without RKBA provisions in their state constitutions.  Those shitholes never developed a sophisticated legal framework testing contested laws against their state's RKBA . . . They never discerned (or cared) what the right to arms is, their legislaturs took the fact of no RKBA provision as permsssion to do whatever they wanted.  

Those shithole states then compounded their error by lazily relying on the collective right lower federal court decisions to sustain their laws when challenged.  Well, _Heller_ invalidated those cases and smashed their crutches and these constitutional cripples, NY, NJ, CA, MD are all going to be knocked down and kicked in the head, finally and with as much legal violence as can be mustered.

That crap article is proof leftists have no clue what the 2nd Amendment is and what it does and know even less about how rights are regarded in state constitutions.  

Jesus H Christ, just when I thought this can't get any more fun!


----------



## Abatis (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?



And this is the level that the gun control side's argument has devolved into.

Voltaire's prayer has been answered abundantly; thank you Lord for making my enemies ridiculous.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

Abatis said:


> And this is the level that the gun control side's argument has devolved into.
> 
> Voltaire's prayer has been answered abundantly; thank you Lord for making my enemies ridiculous.


So what are you so afraid of , coward?


----------



## NoNukes (Nov 1, 2021)

I


BULLDOG said:


> I suspect most of the gun nut cowards here aren't ranchers, and have never had a real reason to fear being pulled out of their car, yet they  still whine about needing to be armed 24/7. Do you live in NYC  or Chicago? No. Gun nuts are just cowards. Admit it. What makes gun nuts so afraid to experience every day life without a gun strapped to their pansy ass?


 I lived in New York City for 20 years. We used to go to Harlem and the South Bronx to after hours clubs and Salsa clubs late at night. I never felt the need to be armed.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I suspect most of the gun nut cowards here aren't ranchers, and have never had a real reason to fear being pulled out of their car, yet they  still whine about needing to be armed 24/7. Do you live in NYC  or Chicago? No. Gun nuts are just cowards. Admit it. What makes gun nuts so afraid to experience every day life without a gun strapped to their pansy ass?




Thank you.......you keep revealing who and what you really are...so all of your high minded fake posts about "Background checks," and other silly anti-gun extremist arguments are revealed by your posts here....

You are nothing more than an anti-gun nut....an extremist.......thanks for reminding us....


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I suspect most of the gun nut cowards here aren't ranchers, and have never had a real reason to fear being pulled out of their car, yet they  still whine about needing to be armed 24/7. Do you live in NYC  or Chicago? No. Gun nuts are just cowards. Admit it. What makes gun nuts so afraid to experience every day life without a gun strapped to their pansy ass?




Who is the coward....

The guy who wears a gun just in case he might need it...the woman who carries a gun in case she might need it,.....

Or the guy who loves riding bikes who is afraid to ride in London parks for fear of being beaten and robbed by gangs of thugs with machetes?

_*On a dry, unseasonably warm evening, still light enough to get home before dark, Harry Speak would usually leap at the chance to do his regular loop around Richmond Park. 

But rather than cycling the leafy seven-mile track, the 28-year old solicitor, is inside his Hammersmith flat, using the turbo-trainer. *_

*After the violent mugging of professional cyclist and former stockbroker, Alexandar Richardson, Speak is scared to complete a lap he’s done almost weekly for a decade. He’d been riding his own road bike in the park just 24 hours before Richardson’s ordeal. “It’s left me pretty rattled.”
===*
_*The details of the 31-year old’s daylight mugging were shocking to both cyclists and non-cyclists alike. On 7 October, four attackers in balaclavas, riding mopeds, pursued Richardson through RichmondPark, wielding a machete. When they caught up with him, they dragged him 100 metres along the ground and made off with his £10,000 bike. He was left badly bloodied and bruised.
The incident is not a one-off. Since the attack less than two weeks ago, it has emerged that three other cyclists were subjected to violent attacks in the same week in the leafy west London enclave, including one man who thought he was going to be decapitated by the machete-wielding thugs, and another who was injured after being threatened with a machete in the area on the same day*_









						Bike wars: How cyclists became the target of violent moped gangs
					

As machete-wielding gangs target cyclists in Richmond, Katie Strick reports on the frightening crime wave - and what is being done




					www.standard.co.uk


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 1, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Utter bullshit that is projection and panic porn for leftists who see their grasp on unconstitutional laws slipping away.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment was a non-entity, unenforceable on the states until 2010 and then went on a hiatus.
> 
> ...




I see you've been reading Clayton's work.....he has the same effect on other rational people too...


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So what are you so afraid of , coward?




Rape, robbery, beatings, stabbings and murders...especially in areas controlled by the democrat party.  You know, where democrat prosecutors and judges either refuse to charge violent criminals, or keep releasing them on bail..............


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> So what are you so afraid of , coward?


Only the most moronic people deny that there is real violence in the world.

You should be thankful you've never been the victim of a violent crime rather than denigrating those that have


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

NoNukes said:


> I
> 
> I lived in New York City for 20 years. We used to go to Harlem and the South Bronx to after hours clubs and Salsa clubs late at night. I never felt the need to be armed.


Only a coward would.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Thank you.......you keep revealing who and what you really are...so all of your high minded fake posts about "Background checks," and other silly anti-gun extremist arguments are revealed by your posts here....
> 
> You are nothing more than an anti-gun nut....an extremist.......thanks for reminding us....


No idea what you are mumbling about. You don't think background checks are needed for cowards?


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Who is the coward....
> 
> The guy who wears a gun just in case he might need it...the woman who carries a gun in case she might need it,.....
> 
> ...


Is that why you are so afraid? Do you think you need a gun because you often ride a bicycle in London parks?


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Rape, robbery, beatings, stabbings and murders...especially in areas controlled by the democrat party.  You know, where democrat prosecutors and judges either refuse to charge violent criminals, or keep releasing them on bail..............


That's exactly what I said. You are afraid to face normal everyday life without being prepared to kill someone. There are plenty of gun nuts just like you. The vast majority of guns in the US are owned by a small proportion of the people. The cowards. The rest of us live life without your constant fear. Lots of us gun owners aren't afraid to face everyday life without being armed. We aren't cowards.I guss that's why we aren't gun nuts.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Only the most moronic people deny that there is real violence in the world.
> 
> You should be thankful you've never been the victim of a violent crime rather than denigrating those that have


Of course there is real violence in the world. Always has been, and always will be. The sane among us know that succumbing to paranoia to the point of being afraid to leave your house without a gun is nuts.
You don't expect me to believe every gun nut has been a victim of violence where a gun would have protected them, and they are in danger of being a victim of violence every time they step off their porch do you?


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Of course there is real violence in the world. Always has been, and always will be. The sane among us know that succumbing to paranoia to the point of being afraid to leave your house without a gun is nuts.
> You don't expect me to believe every gun nut has been a victim of violence where a gun would have protected them, and they are in danger of being a victim of violence every time they step off their porch do you?


It's not paranoia when it happens to you.

I hope you never get jumped by 3 pieces of shit.  I hope you never get jumped from behind, taken to the ground and beat in the face by a guy with a bike chain wrapped aropund his fist while his 2 accomplices kick you in the ribs and stomp on your abdomen.  I hope you're never left bleeding on the ground in the middle of winter after you are robbed and your shoes and coat are taken.  I hope you never have to walk 8 blocks to a hospital and watch people stare at you or to see 2 cops drive by and ignore you as you stumble along covered in your own blood.

I hope you never end up in the hospital for 10 days with 3 broken ribs a ruptured spleen, a fractured eye orbital and a grade 4 concussion.  I hope you're never left with permanent vision impairment in one eye and scars on your face.

This happened to me and it will never happen again so yes after that happened I used to carry a gun all the time when I lived in that shithole city because I wasn't going to be a helpless victim ever again.

Like I said count yourself fortunate and save the internet bravado and insults until you walk a mile in another person's shoes.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Nov 1, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The judicial Second Amendment camp and the political Second Amendment camp will always be at odds, never finding consensus or agreement – with the former following Second Amendment jurisprudence as determined by the Supreme Court and the latter having nothing but contempt for the Court and its decisions concerning the Second Amendment.


The inability to be honest with language is the signature characteristic of the formers anti-constitutional argument, i,e, e.g. "the former following 2nd amendment jurisprudence" should read 'ignoring the actual language in the constitution and substituting it with their own translation' and then referring back to it as proof, and it does fool everyone with a social education.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?



Does it hurt to be the stupid, bulldyke?

I mean, physical pain?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 1, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "The Bill of Rights, _by its terms_, only applies to the federal government, but the Supreme Court, through a doctrine known as incorporation, has made almost all of its guarantees applicable against state and local governments as well. That's what the question was in McDonald," Blocher said. "But some states have chosen to go above and beyond what the court laid out." _ibid_
> 
> Another point of conflict between the two camps.
> 
> ...



You should take a grade school introduction to law, Saul Goodman.









						equal protection
					






					www.law.cornell.edu


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 1, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> What's going to allow gun control is that few of young men hunt or shoot these days. They're all playing video games.
> 
> 58% of NRA membership is over retirement age. Give it another 20-30 years and gun rights won't disappear with a bang, they'll disappear with a whimper.



Lie to yourself some more, Nazi....









						US gun sales spiked during pandemic and continue to rise
					

First-time buyers make up more than one-fifth of Americans who purchased guns amid huge number of firearms already circulating




					www.theguardian.com
				












						Boom: 5M new gun owners, with 58% black and 40% women
					

Gun sales have exploded this year with the help of millions of first-time shooters, according to the industry’s trade group.




					www.washingtonexaminer.com


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Of course there is real violence in the world. Always has been, and always will be.


Sing Kumbaya or knit a quilt, it will go away



BULLDOG said:


> The sane among us know that succumbing to paranoia to the point of being afraid to leave your house without a gun is nuts.


See that doesn't actually happen because of guns, but that is a spot on description of what has actually happened with covid



BULLDOG said:


> You don't expect me to believe every gun nut has been a victim of violence where a gun would have protected them, and they are in danger of being a victim of violence every time they step off their porch do you?


Does "gun nut" sound better than "constitutional right"?

 the lefts fundamental misunderstanding of the constitution [and most everything else] is what leads to non-sense like that type of thinking...

That could be a complete contemptable lie [or journalistic license if you prefer] from beginning to end and top to bottom but it doesn't have to be true to make it a valid point in discussion, the fact that you need some kind of justification for others to employ their constitutional rights is the real problem here.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I suspect most of the gun nut cowards here aren't ranchers, and have never had a real reason to fear being pulled out of their car, yet they  still whine about needing to be armed 24/7. Do you live in NYC  or Chicago? No. Gun nuts are just cowards. Admit it. What makes gun nuts so afraid to experience every day life without a gun strapped to their pansy ass?


99% of us never wear a gun. Only a small percentage of them....not even one percent...feels the need to carry a gun....unless it's something to do with their jobs.

 I know you don't care about people who live in NYC, Chicago, or live on the border......so basically I think you need to STFU and mind your own God Damned Business.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 1, 2021)

mudwhistle said:


> 99% of us never wear a gun. Only a small percentage of them....not even one percent...feels the need to carry a gun....unless it's something to do with their jobs.
> 
> I know you don't care about people who live in NYC, Chicago, or live on the border......so basically I think you need to STFU and mind your own God Damned Business.



Bulldyke rightly fears that as the Schutzstaffel begin kicking in doors to force vaccinations on peoples children, these agents of the democrat party might be met by parents who resist them by force of arms.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 1, 2021)

NoNukes said:


> I
> 
> I lived in New York City for 20 years. We used to go to Harlem and the South Bronx to after hours clubs and Salsa clubs late at night. I never felt the need to be armed.


Have you been there in the last year?
Word is...NYC has changed. The things you used to do are a thing of the past. And Democrats want you to get used to the transformation of America they're ushering in. Get used to high crime, sprawling homelessness, and increased drug use.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 1, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bulldyke rightly fears that as the Schutzstaffel begin kicking in doors to force vaccinations on peoples children, these agents of the democrat party might be met by parents who resist them by force of arms.


That's the primary concern these days. The Nazi's in the Democrat Party trying to force us to do what we don't have to do...or don't want to do.
 Australia made the mistake of giving up their guns and now the cops have everyone in perpetual lock down.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> It's not paranoia when it happens to you.
> 
> I hope you never get jumped by 3 pieces of shit.  I hope you never get jumped from behind, taken to the ground and beat in the face by a guy with a bike chain wrapped aropund his fist while his 2 accomplices kick you in the ribs and stomp on your abdomen.  I hope you're never left bleeding on the ground in the middle of winter after you are robbed and your shoes and coat are taken.  I hope you never have to walk 8 blocks to a hospital and watch people stare at you or to see 2 cops drive by and ignore you as you stumble along covered in your own blood.
> 
> ...


I hope those things don't happen to me too, but I have no reason to believe they will. I'm certainly not coward enough to think there is a reasonable possibility that they might happen. I couldn't live in that much fear. How many people that you know have experienced that? Sure, I suppose something like that has happened at some point to somebody somewhere, but the odds against it are astronomical. Are you also fearful of an airplane falling from the sky, or of being bitten by a radioactive spider? You're a coward. Own it.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

OhPleaseJustQuit said:


> View attachment 558961
> 
> 
> 
> ...


January 6 comes to mind.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Does it hurt to be the stupid, bulldyke?
> 
> I mean, physical pain?


No idea. Does it hurt to be a coward?


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

Frankeneinstein said:


> Sing Kumbaya or knit a quilt, it will go away
> 
> 
> See that doesn't actually happen because of guns, but that is a spot on description of what has actually happened with covid
> ...


If you think it's silly to say you are afraid to face life without being armed, then the coward gun nuts should quit doing it.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.
> 
> "Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."
> 
> ...


We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.  Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

mudwhistle said:


> 99% of us never wear a gun. Only a small percentage of them....not even one percent...feels the need to carry a gun....unless it's something to do with their jobs.
> 
> I know you don't care about people who live in NYC, Chicago, or live on the border......so basically I think you need to STFU and mind your own God Damned Business.


Sure, but you think lots of goofy stuff.


----------



## OhPleaseJustQuit (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.  Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!


That'll be fun to watch.


----------



## westwall (Nov 1, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> If a "measure" has not been ruled constitutional by the court, how can you, with any honesty or acumen,  say it is constitutional?





He can't.  He's an intellectually dishonest pseudo intellectual spewing crap.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 1, 2021)

westwall said:


> He can't.  He's an intellectually dishonest pseudo intellectual spewing crap.


Well yes -- he's a known liar.


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I hope those things don't happen to me too, but I have no reason to believe they will. I'm certainly not coward enough to think there is a reasonable possibility that they might happen. I couldn't live in that much fear. How many people that you know have experienced that? Sure, I suppose something like that has happened at some point to somebody somewhere, but the odds against it are astronomical. Are you also fearful of an airplane falling from the sky, or of being bitten by a radioactive spider? You're a coward. Own it.


Denial is not a sign of intelligence.

And I know quite a few people who have been the victims of violent crime because I grew up where there was a lot of crime.

And I don't really like to fly but that's more of a claustrophobic thing.

Internet tough guys like you who like to crow how brave they are are usually the first ones to piss their pants when threatened so you can keep on being an internet bad ass if it fulfills some deep seeded need you have.  You don't impress anyone.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

mudwhistle said:


> That's the primary concern these days. The Nazi's in the Democrat Party trying to force us to do what we don't have to do...or don't want to do.
> Australia made the mistake of giving up their guns and now the cops have everyone in perpetual lock down.


The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Denial is not a sign of intelligence.
> 
> And I know quite a few people who have been the victims of violent crime because I grew up where there was a lot of crime.
> 
> ...


Being an internet bad ass is the last thing I would want to do. I'm simply not afraid to face life the same way people have always faced life. With the knowledge that there is bad stuff out there, but with a little common sense you can avoid most of it. The odds are that I, like almost every other person in the world  will never have to deal with the massively good or bad things that a miniscule number of people experience. If you choose to live your life cowering in fear, you can do that, but I couldn't live like that.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> That's exactly what I said. You are afraid to face normal everyday life without being prepared to kill someone. There are plenty of gun nuts just like you. The vast majority of guns in the US are owned by a small proportion of the people. The cowards. The rest of us live life without your constant fear. Lots of us gun owners aren't afraid to face everyday life without being armed. We aren't cowards.I guss that's why we aren't gun nuts.
> View attachment 558943




Keep it up.....show us that behind all the pretense of being a reasonable person, you are a rabid, anti-gun extremist, who lies about the need for universal background checks because you need them so you can then demand gun registration....


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 1, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And that all regulatory measures are an ‘infringement’ although the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of those measures.


If a "measure" has not been ruled constitutional by the court, how can you, with any honesty or acumen,  say it is constitutional?        
Well?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I hope those things don't happen to me too, but I have no reason to believe they will. I'm certainly not coward enough to think there is a reasonable possibility that they might happen. I couldn't live in that much fear. How many people that you know have experienced that? Sure, I suppose something like that has happened at some point to somebody somewhere, but the odds against it are astronomical. Are you also fearful of an airplane falling from the sky, or of being bitten by a radioactive spider? You're a coward. Own it.




Get rid of your seat belts, fire and smoke detectors, stop looking both ways before you cross the street...those things are simply the evidence of cowardice...right?


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Being an internet bad ass is the last thing I would want to do. I'm simply not afraid to face life the same way people have always faced life. With the knowledge that there is bad stuff out there, but with a little common sense you can avoid most of it. The odds are that I, like almost every other person in the world  will never have to deal with the massively good or bad things that a miniscule number of people experience. If you choose to live your life cowering in fear, you can do that, but I couldn't live like that.


I don't cower, never did.

You'd piss your pants if you ever lived in my old neighborhood of that I am certain.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


You can't have an organized militia if the population cannot own guns or learn how to shoot on their own. 
You understand the difference between a militia and an active military unit, right?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

mudwhistle said:


> You can't have an organized militia if the population cannot own guns or learn how to shoot on their own.
> You understand the difference between a militia and an active military unit, right?


To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 1, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;


That's not in the constitution.
You cannot train just anyone to be in a militia. They have to grow up using guns. 
Congress doesn't know shit about arming and training anyone BTW.


----------



## Papageorgio (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?


Don't own or want a gun. If a person wants to own a gun or a thousand guns, I really don't care, that is their choice. Just as I don't care if anyone else wants to vaccinate, it is not my business.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

mudwhistle said:


> That's not in the constitution.
> You cannot train just anyone to be in a militia. They have to grow up using guns.
> Congress doesn't know shit about arming and training anyone BTW.


Why should anyone take right-wingers seriously about their sincerity regarding being legal to the law?


----------



## marvin martian (Nov 1, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.
> 
> "Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."
> 
> ...



Ah, the leftist dream...total abolition of our civil rights.

Sorry fascist, it's not happening.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Keep it up.....show us that behind all the pretense of being a reasonable person, you are a rabid, anti-gun extremist, who lies about the need for universal background checks because you need them so you can then demand gun registration....


pointing out how much of a coward you are is hardly rabid. I am not anti gun. I own guns. I'm anti-gun-nut.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Get rid of your seat belts, fire and smoke detectors, stop looking both ways before you cross the street...those things are simply the evidence of cowardice...right?


No. those things are a reasonable precaution, and I have never heard of any one of those things either intentionally or accidentally killing an innocent person. Being armed as if you were in a war zone  to go to the convince store for a soda and some double A batteries for the remote is not reasonable. It's the action of a coward gun nut with mental problems. I've told you before that I don't have a problem with you strapping a fire extinguisher to your leg.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> I don't cower, never did.
> 
> You'd piss your pants if you ever lived in my old neighborhood of that I am certain.


Did that happen to you often as you grew up?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 1, 2021)

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. 

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 1, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.
> 
> "Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."
> 
> ...


The 2A is a ban on federal authority.  

All that bullshit you and others have written is just that.  It's trying to bend over backwards to find some sort of "reasoning" to justify doing the EXACT OPPOSITE of the intended meaning of the 2A.

This issue will continue to inspire rebellion and may lead to outright secession.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?


Oh, the macho shaming.  We're not manly if we have guns?

 

Go fuck yourself.  We're not giving them up.  I don't care how much your vagina bleeds about it.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Oh, the macho shaming.  We're not manly if we have guns?
> 
> 
> 
> Go fuck yourself.  We're not giving them up.  I don't care how much your vagina bleeds about it.


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.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 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.


Carrying a gun is not macho or manly?  Only chickenshits carry?

Yeah, we heard you loud and clear.  Fuck off.  We're going to keep carrying, and you can thank us for the blanket of protection you enjoy by the presumption of being armed we provide.  You're welcome.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Carrying a gun is not macho or manly?  Only chickenshits carry?
> 
> Yeah, we heard you loud and clear.  Fuck off.  We're going to keep carrying, and you can thank us for the blanket of protection you enjoy by the presumption of being armed we provide.  You're welcome.


Only a coward fears for his life 24/7/365


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Only a coward fears for his life 24/7/365


Wear a sign around your neck 24/7/365 that states "I am not armed" or shut the fuck up.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> pointing out how much of a coward you are is hardly rabid. I am not anti gun. I own guns. I'm anti-gun-nut.



Leftists own guns…..they do not want their victims to own guns…..filling mass graves is a lot harder when your victims can shoot back


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Wear a sign around your neck 24/7/365 that states "I am not armed" or shut the fuck up.


You're a goofy little troll, aren't you?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> No. those things are a reasonable precaution, and I have never heard of any one of those things either intentionally or accidentally killing an innocent person. Being armed as if you were in a war zone  to go to the convince store for a soda and some double A batteries for the remote is not reasonable. It's the action of a coward gun nut with mental problems. I've told you before that I don't have a problem with you strapping a fire extinguisher to your leg.



please keep posting like that…..you reveal exactly who and what you are


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 1, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Only a coward fears for his life 24/7/365



You shitheads keep using that word, “fear.”   There is no fear…..the same emotion that goes into checking to see if your front door is locked,  or replacing the batteries on a smoke detector is the lack of emotion when you decide to carry a gun for self defense….

The only one who stinks with fear is you and the other bedwetters who attack normal gun owners


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Leftists own guns…..they do not want their victims to own guns…..filling mass graves is a lot harder when your victims can shoot back


You fear being put in a mass grave? Your paranoia must be overwhelming. No wonder you spend your life in abject fear.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 1, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You shitheads keep using that word, “fear.”   There is no fear…..the same emotion that goes into checking to see if your front door is locked,  or replacing the batteries on a smoke detector is the lack of emotion when you decide to carry a gun for self defense….
> 
> The only one who stinks with fear is you and the other bedwetters who attack normal gun owners


You have claimed you need to be armed at all times. Abject fear is a major part of your life.


----------



## Natural Citizen (Nov 1, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> You should take a grade school introduction to law, Saul Goodman.



Heh heh. I was thinking the same thing.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 1, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> And that all regulatory measures are an ‘infringement’ although the Supreme Court has never ruled on the constitutionality of those measures.


If a "measure" has not been ruled constitutional by the court, how can you, with any honesty or acumen,  say it is constitutional?        
Well?


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I suspect most of the gun nut cowards here aren't ranchers, and have never had a real reason to fear being pulled out of their car, yet they  still whine about needing to be armed 24/7. Do you live in NYC  or Chicago? No. Gun nuts are just cowards. Admit it. What makes gun nuts so afraid to experience every day life without a gun strapped to their pansy ass?


Why do you want gun control?


----------



## NoNukes (Nov 2, 2021)

mudwhistle said:


> Have you been there in the last year?
> Word is...NYC has changed. The things you used to do are a thing of the past. And Democrats want you to get used to the transformation of America they're ushering in. Get used to high crime, sprawling homelessness, and increased drug use.


It was a lot worse back in the 70s. Speak of what you know.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You fear being put in a mass grave? Your paranoia must be overwhelming. No wonder you spend your life in abject fear.




Thank you again.....keep posting....we need people to see who you are, what you are and what you think of normal gun owners....the fear just rolls off of you with every post....


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 2, 2021)

NoNukes said:


> It was a lot worse back in the 70s. Speak of what you know.




The democrats are making it the 1970s again......and they aren't just doing it to New York......they are doing it to San Fran, Chicago, and every other city they control....


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You have claimed you need to be armed at all times. Abject fear is a major part of your life.



Armed at all times?    No.   The ability to carry a gun whenever we feel the need to?  Yes.

You want to take that choice away from us...because of your fear.

Keeping a fire extinguisher in the home, a smoke detector, locking your door....it's not fear...it's a respect for things that could happen...same with carrying a gun.   There is no fear, just the realization that evil people exist....and they hurt innocent people....and you never know where or when those evil people will enter your life.....

You doofus.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

Wild Bill Kelsoe said:


> Why do you want gun control?


To reduce the possession of guns for people who use them illegally and dangerously. If you can't pass a simple background check, you shouldn't have a gun.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Thank you again.....keep posting....we need people to see who you are, what you are and what you think of normal gun owners....the fear just rolls off of you with every post....


There you go making stupid unfounded remarks again. I have never had a problem with responsible gun owners who understand that reasonable precautions should be made to ensure safe use and limit possession by those who either can't or won't accept the fact that an item whose only purpose is to kill should be regulated. There are two types of gun owners. Reasonable ones, and gun nuts like you who want everyone armed all the time, whether they can pass a background check or not.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Armed at all times?    No.   The ability to carry a gun whenever we feel the need to?  Yes.
> 
> You want to take that choice away from us...because of your fear.
> 
> ...


It's not the same thing.  I have never heard of anyone killed by the accidental or intentional misuse of a fire extinguisher or smoke detector. A locked door isn't specifically designed to kill. You gun nuts are dumber by the day.


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Did that happen to you often as you grew up?


Nope.

But you wouldn't last an hour on the streets


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> If you think it's silly to say you are afraid to face life without being armed, then the coward gun nuts should quit doing it.



did I say silly? or was that just your take on it? In any case my post only dealt with your description of the brave hearted vaccinated geniuses who are afraid of the unvaccinated even though they claim the vacine works


----------



## Correll (Nov 2, 2021)

NoNukes said:


> It was a lot worse back in the 70s. Speak of what you know.




It is coming again.


----------



## Correll (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> There you go making stupid unfounded remarks again. I have never had a problem with responsible gun owners who understand that reasonable precautions should be made to ensure safe use and limit possession by those who either can't or won't accept the fact that an item whose only purpose is to kill should be regulated. There are two types of gun owners. Reasonable ones, and gun nuts like you who want everyone armed all the time, whether they can pass a background check or not.




BULLSHIT.


----------



## Correll (Nov 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> I don't cower, never did.
> 
> You'd piss your pants if you ever lived in my old neighborhood of that I am certain.




Coming from a shitty neighborhood is nothing to be proud of.


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> Coming from a shitty neighborhood is nothing to be proud of.


I'm not proud of it because I had nothing to do with being born into poverty.  

I got out of there 20 years ago but living there also gave me the drive to succeed so I could get out.  

Idiots like Bulldog like to live in denial about the violence in the world.  I am merely trying to educate him/her about the real world.


----------



## Correll (Nov 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> I'm not proud of it because I had nothing to do with being born into poverty.
> 
> I got out of there 20 years ago but living there also gave me the drive to succeed so I could get out.
> 
> Idiots like Bulldog like to live in denial about the violence in the world.  I am merely trying to educate him/her about the real world.




I came from a poor/working class suburban background. Wasn't really that dangerous. No gangs. No real crime, that I was aware of. In the summers, my one neighbor, his cousins visited because their parents wanted them out of the city where they could get into less trouble. Read NO trouble. 


That world is, or at least was, just as real as yours. 


I am somewhat proud of it. I did not make it. But I am part of the culture that did, and lord knows I have taken enough flak for that, that being proud of the accomplishments of it, seems fair. 


Today, I am partially responsible for my neighborhood being as nice as it is. My child can walk "the street; here, without being tough. I can walk to the store or the local pizza shop, without being tough.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> If you think it's silly to say you are afraid to face life without being armed, then the coward gun nuts should quit doing it.


and just so it is clear, my post made it clear your post better described people who were vaccinated than anyone/anything else


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 2, 2021)

Correll said:


> I came from a poor/working class suburban background. Wasn't really that dangerous. No gangs. No real crime, that I was aware of. In the summers, my one neighbor, his cousins visited because their parents wanted them out of the city where they could get into less trouble. Read NO trouble.
> 
> 
> That world is, or at least was, just as real as yours.
> ...


Yeah you didn't have to worry about getting shot, assaulted etc.

So people who think they can call me cowardly for carrying a gun when I lived there are just plain ignorant


----------



## Correll (Nov 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Yeah you didn't have to worry about getting shot, assaulted etc.
> 
> So people who think they can call me cowardly for carrying a gun when I lived there are just plain ignorant




Yes, fair enough.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

NoNukes said:


> It was a lot worse back in the 70s. Speak of what you know.



Such a fucking lie.

Even under Carter it was never this bad economically.

And the RACISM you Nazi democrats have spread is vastly worse than anything since the 1920's. In the 1980's racism was pretty much a thing of the past. All you democrats had to do to revive it was change the color of your victim.

NEW IMPROVED DEMOCRATS - Now hating Whites...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Thank you again.....keep posting....we need people to see who you are, what you are and what you think of normal gun owners....the fear just rolls off of you with every post....



Oh, we know who Bulldyke is...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> To reduce the possession of guns for people who use them illegally and dangerously. If you can't pass a simple background check, you shouldn't have a gun.



How about smoke detectors? Will you Nazis outlaw those too?


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 2, 2021)

NoNukes said:


> It was a lot worse back in the 70s. Speak of what you know.


According to folks that live in NYC they say you're wrong.
Seems they think NYC is going to shit in a short period of time.
This is what happens when you're foolish enough to elect a communist to be your mayor.
I'm not gonna argue with you about how bad things were in the 70s in NYC.....things were bad in CA during the 70s.
The problem seems to be that Democrats like yourself get put in charge and everything goes to shit.
The sudden change in less than 2 years is what is glaringly obvious.
Sure....it's been decades since people could go to work and see a naked drug-addict chasing some woman thru Central Park....but that was because of LSD. Now it's because of Democrat policies and Democrat judges on the bench.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> It's not the same thing.  I have never heard of anyone killed by the accidental or intentional misuse of a fire extinguisher or smoke detector. A locked door isn't specifically designed to kill. You gun nuts are dumber by the day.



Problem is you're both stupid and a pathological liar.

Blunt objects are involved in vastly more murders every year than guns are. Blunt objects are involved in more murders each year than AR-15's have been in the last thousand years.

A disarmed people are an obedient people.


----------



## maybelooking (Nov 2, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> What's going to allow gun control is that few of young men hunt or shoot these days. They're all playing video games.
> 
> 58% of NRA membership is over retirement age. Give it another 20-30 years and gun rights won't disappear with a bang, they'll disappear with a whimper.


This line of thought (or lack thereof) is the greatest gift in the history of man to those of us who cherish our Constitutional rights, and hand down that belief and knowledge to our children.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

maybelooking said:


> This line of thought (or lack thereof) is the greatest gift in the history of man to those of us who cherish our Constitutional rights, and hand down that belief and knowledge to our children.



The passing down of knowledge and values to our children is why McAuliffe, Oberfuhrer Garland, and Xi's man have declared war against parents.


----------



## maybelooking (Nov 2, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> The passing down of knowledge and values to our children is why McAuliffe, Oberfuhrer Garland, and Xi's man have declared war against parents.


And I will fight that war by being involved and not allowing them to stop me from teaching my children the truth.

My children weren't raised by their schools.  My wife and I didn't allow it.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States. 

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.
> 
> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._
> 
> Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!



Hey stupid, you grasp that "regulate" means "to arm," doncha?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Hey stupid, you grasp that "regulate" means "to arm," doncha?


No, I don't.  Here are the directions: _ To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_


----------



## Abatis (Nov 2, 2021)

And now I have spent time reading dozens of posts of people trying to rebut the rantings of an imbecile crying about how they FEEL about people who own guns.

Why are people so enthralled with the emotions and insecurities of a piss-their-pants leftist who is utterly incapable of reason, who can't even converse in facts and logic?

Does anyone *really *think they are conversing with an honest person who can ever be convinced that they shouldn't keep saying gun owners "live in fear", when they get a bunch of Pavlov's dogs to bark and scratch every time they say it?  

You do realize hearing "_no we aren't_" is the entire goal of a troll's existence and purpose for posting right????

The shear fact that they can drag this most pathetic red herring across the thread and make them and their infantile feelings the focus of discussion, for page after page, is sad . . .  Thinking people replying to the parrot-like "you're afraid" stupidity believing they are actually rebutting an honest, interested poster, is sadder.

There is an old saying . . .  *DON'T FEED THE TROLL*.

All this turd lives for is people they hate and are afraid of and have no real concern about their opinions, being prodded into replying to them.  

The only way to show you are smarter than a dumb, mouth-breathing, fart factory & shit in the house and then eat it bulldog, is by not replying AT ALL to their disingenuous, lazy-brained crap.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> No, I don't.  Here are the directions: _ To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;_



Did you read your own post, idiot?

_To provide for organizing, *arming,* and disciplining, _

You are severely retarded.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> To reduce the possession of guns for people who use them illegally and dangerously. If you can't pass a simple background check, you shouldn't have a gun.



We already have background checks


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Did you read your own post, idiot?
> 
> _To provide for organizing, *arming,* and disciplining, _
> 
> You are severely retarded.


The alcohol seems to be petrifying your intelligence.  Have you tried smoking pot?


----------



## maybelooking (Nov 2, 2021)

Abatis said:


> And now I have spent time reading dozens of posts of people trying to rebut the rantings of an imbecile crying about how they FEEL about people who own guns.
> 
> Why are people so enthralled with the emotions and insecurities of a piss-their-pants leftist who is utterly incapable of reason, who can't even converse in facts and logic?
> 
> ...


While I agree with your post one thousand percent......

if we didn't occasionally feed the trolls this board would shut the hell down.  That appears to be about 80 to 90 percent of what gets posted here.  Trollish behavior by idiots.  I think my ignore list is up over 70 now.  And counting.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> There you go making stupid unfounded remarks again. I have never had a problem with responsible gun owners who understand that reasonable precautions should be made to ensure safe use and limit possession by those who either can't or won't accept the fact that an item whose only purpose is to kill should be regulated. There are two types of gun owners. Reasonable ones, and gun nuts like you who want everyone armed all the time, whether they can pass a background check or not.



The stink of fear is all over you.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 2, 2021)

Does anyone care to discuss the article discussed in the OP?

There's _plenty_ of fodder for thinking people on both sides to debate . . .


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

Why do we have any security problems in our free States?

Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 2, 2021)

Abatis said:


> And now I have spent time reading dozens of posts of people trying to rebut the rantings of an imbecile crying about how they FEEL about people who own guns.
> 
> Why are people so enthralled with the emotions and insecurities of a piss-their-pants leftist who is utterly incapable of reason, who can't even converse in facts and logic?
> 
> ...



My response isnt for him.  My response is for casual readers who may not know about the gun issues except for  everything they see on television, the news and every other left wing controlled source…..

My response is meant to show the truth and reality……in the small hope normal, uninformed people will see it and nod in agreement….and realize the anti-gun bedwetters just insane


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Does anyone care to discuss the article discussed in the OP?
> 
> There's _plenty_ of fodder for thinking people on both sides to debate . . .



Go ahead.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Why do we have any security problems in our free States?
> 
> Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!



Define 'security problems?" You rambling drug addict?


----------



## Abatis (Nov 2, 2021)

maybelooking said:


> While I agree with your post one thousand percent......
> 
> if we didn't occasionally feed the trolls this board would shut the hell down.  That appears to be about 80 to 90 percent of what gets posted here.  Trollish behavior by idiots.  I think my ignore list is up over 70 now.  And counting.



Trolls are afraid and repulsed by actual debate.  People like Bulldog do not even contemplate this topic in the language of facts and history and law; they only _feel_ their opinion. I think in principles, words, philosophy and law, Bulldog thinks in colors . . . It is an entirely different language.

Trying to debate a person's "feelings" is a useless endeavor; that's why I try to remind myself that people can not be reasoned out of an opinion they didn't first reason themselves into . . .  Accept that and just save the energy.



.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Define 'security problems?" You rambling drug addict?


Would we have as many gun lover problems if gun lovers had to muster and become well regulated if they want to keep and bear Arms in public venus?


----------



## maybelooking (Nov 2, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Trying to debate a person's "feelings" is a useless endeavor; that's why I try to remind myself that people can not be reasoned out of an opinion they didn't first reason themselves into . . . Accept that and just save the energy.


Well said.  I need to try harder to remember that myself.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Would we have as many gun lover problems if gun lovers had to muster and become well regulated if they want to keep and bear Arms in public venus?



So, no answer?

You're just a troll.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> So, no answer?
> 
> You're just a troll.


With some relevant rhetoric:

We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.  Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Trolls are afraid and repulsed by actual debate.  People like Bulldog do not even contemplate this topic in the language of facts and history and law; they only _feel_ their opinion. I think in principles, words, philosophy and law, Bulldog thinks in colors . . . It is an entirely different language.
> 
> Trying to debate a person's "feelings" is a useless endeavor; that's why I try to remind myself that people can not be reasoned out of an opinion they didn't first reason themselves into . . .  Accept that and just save the energy.
> 
> ...



I think I see the problem...

One doesn't "debate" Bulldyke. Mock it, humiliate it, refute it's idiocy. You're correct, you can't debate an invertebrate leftist.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> With some relevant rhetoric:
> 
> We have a Second Amendment and should have no security problems in our free States.  Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and Regulate them Well!



We have gun control laws and we should have no gun violence in our blue states.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> We have gun control laws and we should have no gun violence in our blue states.


We know gun lovers have no problem being illegal to the Law for Legal purposes.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 2, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Go ahead.







__





						Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate
					

‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.  "Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws...



					www.usmessageboard.com


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Nope.
> 
> But you wouldn't last an hour on the streets


I've lasted lots of years already.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> We have gun control laws and we should have no gun violence in our blue states.


Well that's just dumb. We have laws concerning all kinds of crime. Using your logic, we should have no crime at all of any kind. It doesn't work like that dumb ass.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

Frankeneinstein said:


> did I say silly? or was that just your take on it? In any case my post only dealt with your description of the brave hearted vaccinated geniuses who are afraid of the unvaccinated even though they claim the vacine works


Nobody ever said the vaccine is 100%. At best, it greatly reduces the chances of contracting the virus, or of having severe symptoms if contracted.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You're a goofy little troll, aren't you?


Do you believe some of us being armed does not give you presumptive protection?

If so, wear that sign around your neck 24/7 and find out.


----------



## Wild Bill Kelsoe (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> To reduce the possession of guns for people who use them illegally and dangerously. If you can't pass a simple background check, you shouldn't have a gun.


They'll just get a gun via other channels.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

Frankeneinstein said:


> and just so it is clear, my post made it clear your post better described people who were vaccinated than anyone/anything else


That might have been what you were trying to do, but you failed.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> Why do we have any security problems in our free States?
> 
> Don't grab guns, grab gun lovers and regulate them well!


What do you mean by "grab gun lovers and regulate them well"?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> What do you mean by "grab gun lovers and regulate them well"?


The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Nov 2, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia.


Where are you getting this text?

What do you mean by "grab gun lovers and regulate them well"?


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> How about smoke detectors? Will you Nazis outlaw those too?


Really? You're still trying to use Nazi to describe everything you don't like, as in "brussels sprouts are Nazi"? I have no problem if you want to open carry a smoke detector. Feel free to strap one on any time you want to.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Problem is you're both stupid and a pathological liar.
> 
> Blunt objects are involved in vastly more murders every year than guns are. Blunt objects are involved in more murders each year than AR-15's have been in the last thousand years.
> 
> A disarmed people are an obedient people.


You gun nuts sound more like Irwin Mainway every day.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> We already have background checks


That was an absurd remark the last hundred times you made it.  You know individual sellers, or as you like to call them "straw buyers",  are not obligated to even care if an unknown buyer can pass a background check.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The stink of fear is all over you.


I fear childish, irresponsible gun nuts.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Do you believe some of us being armed does not give you presumptive protection?
> 
> If so, wear that sign around your neck 24/7 and find out.


Armed gun nuts on the street who have not, and can not pass a background check are a danger to everybody near them.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> That was an absurd remark the last hundred times you made it.  You know individual sellers, or as you like to call them "straw buyers",  are not obligated to even care if an unknown buyer can pass a background check.




And you know you are lying.......individual sellers are not the issue...straw buyers....people who intentionally buy guns to sell them illegally....are the problem...and the democrat party lets them go too.......

The baby mommas, mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers of criminals are the straw buyers for guns...then you have others who use their ability to pass background checks...any background check, to buy guns for criminals....once they are caught, we can lock them up...then the democrat party lets them go again...


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 2, 2021)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Where are you getting this text?
> 
> What do you mean by "grab gun lovers and regulate them well"?


A State Constitution, for simplicity. 

_The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> And you know you are lying.......individual sellers are not the issue...straw buyers....people who intentionally buy guns to sell them illegally....are the problem...and the democrat party lets them go too.......
> 
> The baby mommas, mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers of criminals are the straw buyers for guns...then you have others who use their ability to pass background checks...any background check, to buy guns for criminals....once they are caught, we can lock them up...then the democrat party lets them go again...


The baby mommas, mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers of criminals, or anyone else who chooses to claim they are individual sellers can legally sell or give a gun to anyone they choose. The only way to charge them is to prove they knew the recipient of the weapon was not allowed to have a gun.  This one and only way of prosecuting the individual seller/straw buyer comes with the added advantage of not even being required to check on the recipient's status. You know this stuff. Why do you keep pretending you don't? Are you retarded?


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I've lasted lots of years already.


Yeah in your little fantasy world where no one is ever the victim of a violent crime.

Like I said you'd fold like a cheap suit if you ever had to stand up to anyone hell bent on doing you harm


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The baby mommas, mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers of criminals, or anyone else who chooses to claim they are individual sellers can legally sell or give a gun to anyone they choose. The only way to charge them is to prove they knew the recipient of the weapon was not allowed to have a gun.  This one and only way of prosecuting the individual seller/straw buyer comes with the added advantage of not even being required to check on the recipient's status. You know this stuff. Why do you keep pretending you don't? Are you retarded?




No, they can't.  You know this, of course.

Keep posting.....trusting our gun Rights to people like you is a non-starter ....


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Yeah in your little fantasy world where no one is ever the victim of a violent crime.
> 
> Like I said you'd fold like a cheap suit if you ever had to stand up to anyone hell bent on doing you harm


I have no need to convince you otherwise. You are free to believe what you will. My ego requires nothing from you, so your childish taunts are nothing more than childish taunts.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> No, they can't.  You know this, of course.
> 
> Keep posting.....trusting our gun Rights to people like you is a non-starter ....


Really? Please quote the law that says what you claim.


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I have no need to convince you otherwise. You are free to believe what you will. My ego requires nothing from you, so your childish taunts are nothing more than childish taunts.


Your ego required you call other people cowards when you have no clue as to what those people have experienced.

You're just another wannabe internet bad ass.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> Your ego required you call other people cowards when you have no clue as to what those people have experienced.
> 
> You're just another wannabe internet bad ass.


My ego has nothing to do with your fear of not being armed 24/7


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Really? You're still trying to use Nazi to describe everything you don't like, as in "brussels sprouts are Nazi"? I have no problem if you want to open carry a smoke detector. Feel free to strap one on any time you want to.



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.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You gun nuts sound more like Irwin Mainway every day.



Get caught lying, post a non-sequitur...

That's our Bulldyke...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> That was an absurd remark the last hundred times you made it.  You know individual sellers, or as you like to call them "straw buyers",  are not obligated to even care if an unknown buyer can pass 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.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Armed gun nuts on the street who have not, and can not pass a background check are a danger to everybody near them.



Lying fucking retard....

Armed gun nuts on the street who have not, and can not pass a background check are called "felons," fuckwad.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> The baby mommas, mothers, sisters, aunts, grandmothers of criminals, or anyone else who chooses to claim they are individual sellers can legally sell or give a gun to anyone they choose. The only way to charge them is to prove they knew the recipient of the weapon was not allowed to have a gun.  This one and only way of prosecuting the individual seller/straw buyer comes with the added advantage of not even being required to check on the recipient's status. You know this stuff. Why do you keep pretending you don't? Are you retarded?



That's a fucking lie.

What a piece of shit you are.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> 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.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> My ego has nothing to do with your fear of not being armed 24/7



You're a fucking psychopath, a pathological liar.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 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.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> 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?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 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?




Stupid fuck, carrying a concealed weapon illegally is. well ILLEGAL you fucking retard.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 2, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> 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......


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> 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?


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> 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.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> That's true, but selling or giving a gun to a felon isn't





Pathological liar vomits WHAT?



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



BULLDOG said:


> , and individuals are not even  required to find out if the recipient is allowed to have it.



Are you lying, or just so insane that you believe the idiocy you shit out?


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

2aguy said:


> 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.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Nov 2, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Are you saying no individual seller has ever sold a gun to a felon?



Ohh, a Straw Man...



BULLDOG said:


> How could you know that? The individual seller is under no obligation to know or find out whether the recipient is a felon.



Straw Man fallacies are not straw buyers, psychopath.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Pathological liar vomits WHAT?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


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.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 2, 2021)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Ohh, a Straw Man...
> 
> 
> 
> Straw Man fallacies are not straw buyers, psychopath.


We both know better than that. Just because you have no logical response doesn't make it a straw man.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 2, 2021)

mudwhistle said:


> 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.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 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.


Says the known liar.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 2, 2021)

marvin martian said:


> 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.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 2, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 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.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 2, 2021)

Abatis said:


> 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.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 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.

.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 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.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Nov 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Nobody ever said the vaccine is 100%.


What percentage is it?



BULLDOG said:


> At best, it greatly reduces the chances of contracting the virus, or of having severe symptoms if contracted.



at best? at least its honest kudos for that, most folks who receive the shot start acting like the sky is falling


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Nov 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> That might have been what you were trying to do, but you failed.


ahhh! the ol I'm rubber your glue rebuttal


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Nov 3, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Why the Second Amendment may be losing relevance in gun debate​‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment. "Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws...


hmmmm, the most telling thing about this post is the Freudian slip:
"Before you even get to the Constitution,"
Now there is proof of what they are really going after


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> My ego has nothing to do with your fear of not being armed 24/7


I don't carry a gun all the time.
That's just more of your baseless assumptions.

And those who call others cowards all the time are just projecting their own inadequacies.


----------



## mudwhistle (Nov 3, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> 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.


No.....you're talking about anti-gun nuts.
That's why they vote for gun-grabbing politicians.
Many of them are with guns like Dracula when they see a cross. 
They seem to want to wrap their arms around a drug-addict because he's black....forgetting that those types are responsible for most of the violent crime in America.


----------



## maybelooking (Nov 3, 2021)

Does locking ones door make them paranoid because they think someone is always lurking to break in their home and kill them at a moments notice?

Asking for a friend.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 3, 2021)

Frankeneinstein said:


> What percentage is it?
> 
> 
> 
> at best? at least its honest kudos for that, most folks who receive the shot start acting like the sky is falling











						Comparing the COVID-19 Vaccines: How Are They Different?
					

Keeping up with COVID-19 vaccines can be a daunting task. To help people keep up, Yale Medicine mapped out a comparison of the five most prominent ones.




					www.yalemedicine.org
				



*How well it works: *Experts continue to learn about Pfizer’s efficacy both in the laboratory and in the real world. Pfizer’s initial Phase 3 clinical data presented in December showed its vaccine to have 95% efficacy. In April, the company announced the vaccine had 91.3% efficacy against COVID-19, based on measuring how well it prevented symptomatic COVID-19 infection seven days through up to six months after the second dose. It also found it to be 100% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the CDC, and 95.3% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the FDA. Another study, not yet peer-reviewed, provided more new data that brought the efficacy number down to 84% after 6 months, although efficacy against severe disease was 97%.


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 3, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> 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.


So when you buy life insurance are you paranoid that you're going to drop dead any second?
When you wear a seat belt are you paranoid that you'll be in a car accident?
When you buy home owners insurance are you paranoid that your house will burn down?

A firearm is personal protection insurance that's all.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 3, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> I don't carry a gun all the time.
> That's just more of your baseless assumptions.
> 
> And those who call others cowards all the time are just projecting their own inadequacies.


Gun nuts here often brag about being armed at all times. I personally know gun nuts that, in a country neighborhood with virtually no crime  (kids from the other side of the highway stole a 4 wheeler last month), won't sit on their back porch without a gun.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Nov 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> *How well it works: *Experts continue to learn about Pfizer’s efficacy both in the laboratory and in the real world. Pfizer’s initial Phase 3 clinical data presented in December showed its vaccine to have 95% efficacy. In April, the company announced the vaccine had 91.3% efficacy against COVID-19, based on measuring how well it prevented symptomatic COVID-19 infection seven days through up to six months after the second dose. It also found it to be 100% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the CDC, and 95.3% effective in preventing severe disease as defined by the FDA. Another study, not yet peer-reviewed, provided more new data that brought the efficacy number down to 84% after 6 months, although efficacy against severe disease was 97%.


And the non vaccinated? that reads like a bible passage, from that "excerpt" can you give me the actual percentage? we also need to know the number vaccinated and non vaccinated to assess any claims of efficacy [btw, "efficacy" is the type of term one would use when one does not want to be pinned down on an issue, it sounds good but has no real commitment]


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Gun nuts here often brag about being armed at all times. I personally know gun nuts that, in a country neighborhood with virtually no crime  (kids from the other side of the highway stole a 4 wheeler last month), won't sit on their back porch without a gun.


YEah whatever you say , tough guy


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 3, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> So when you buy life insurance are you paranoid that you're going to drop dead any second?
> When you wear a seat belt are you paranoid that you'll be in a car accident?
> When you buy home owners insurance are you paranoid that your house will burn down?
> 
> A firearm is personal protection insurance that's all.


I've never heard of an innocent bystander being killed from misuse of insurance of any kind, or seat belts, by someone who just didn't want to use them safely.


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> I've never heard of an innocent bystander being killed from misuse of insurance of any kind, or seat belts, by someone who just didn't want to use them safely.


And I never killed an innocent bystander with any of my firearms.

So once again your assumptions are baseless and your generalizations are ridiculous.

So tell me how many people who LEGALLY carry concealed weapons have ever accidentally shot a bystander.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 3, 2021)

Frankeneinstein said:


> And the non vaccinated? that reads like a bible passage, from that "excerpt" can you give me the actual percentage? we also need to know the number vaccinated and non vaccinated to assess any claims of efficacy [btw, "efficacy" is the type of term one would use when one does not want to be pinned down on an issue, it sounds good but has no real commitment]


You really should expand your vocabulary.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (Nov 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You really should expand your vocabulary.


yeah, good answer


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 3, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> And I never killed an innocent bystander with any of my firearms.
> 
> So once again your assumptions are baseless and your generalizations are ridiculous.
> 
> So tell me how many people who LEGALLY carry concealed weapons have ever accidentally shot a bystander.


Just because it hasn't happened to you, you think it doesn't happen? These people didn't care enough about safety to keep their guns out of the hands of their toddlers.


----------



## Flash (Nov 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?




Liberals are pussies.  They are afraid of anyone that chose to protect themselves. 

Like this lady:


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Just because it hasn't happened to you, you think it doesn't happen? These people didn't care enough about safety to keep their guns out of the hands of their toddlers.


OK so you have nothing about a person who is legally carrying a firearm accidentally shooting anyone.

Didn't think so.

Last time I checked no toddler can get a carry permit.

Maybe you should be advocating licenses for having kids


----------



## maybelooking (Nov 3, 2021)

Flash said:


> Liberals are pussies.  They are afraid of anyone that chose to protect themselves.
> 
> Like this lady:
> 
> View attachment 559826


That scares the hell out of the left.

A black woman who can think for herself and doesn't need the lefts "permission"

This simply can not be allowed.


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 3, 2021)

An estimated 430 accidental gun deaths annually









						Unintentional firearm deaths in the United States 2005–2015 - Injury Epidemiology
					

Background Unintentional gun death occurs four times more often in the United States than other high-income countries. Research on these deaths typically has a narrow scope. We believe this is the first study describing the circumstances of these deaths in the United States that covers more than...




					injepijournal.biomedcentral.com
				




Out of the 100 million plus guns in the country

If any other product had that kind of safety record it would be held up as an example.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 3, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> OK so you have nothing about a person who is legally carrying a firearm accidentally shooting anyone.
> 
> Didn't think so.
> 
> ...


 Or advocate common sense safety, None of those in the videos saw the need to take safety precautions.


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Or advocate common sense safety, None of those in the videos saw the need to take safety precautions.


430 accidental gun deaths per year or

over 100 million gun legal gun owners in the country.  So .00043% of gun owners are ever involved even once removed in accidental fatalities.

That is a stellar safety record.

But you still can't prove that people LEGALLY carrying concealed weapons kill innocent bystanders because as a group people who LEGALLY carry concealed weapons are some of the most law abiding people in the country.

I want to amend this by also stating that some of those accidental gun deaths obviously involve people who possess guns ILLEGALLY so the safety record for people who own guns LEGALLY is even better than the statistics show.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 3, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> So when you buy life insurance are you paranoid that you're going to drop dead any second?
> When you wear a seat belt are you paranoid that you'll be in a car accident?
> When you buy home owners insurance are you paranoid that your house will burn down?
> 
> A firearm is personal protection insurance that's all.


No, This is paranoia,
"We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and car-jackers and knock-out gamers and rapers, haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping-mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all." --- Wayne LaPierre

His solution: "Owning a gun is the solution. The world is a scary place. There are bad guys everywhere threatening you and your family, and the only thing they’re afraid of is a gun in _your _hands."

If you truely believe this, you are a paranoid gun nut.


----------



## Otis Mayfield (Nov 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.
> 
> "Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."
> 
> ...




The article in the OP says that state laws protect gun rights more than the Second Amendment these days.

That might be true in some states.

But I think if the Second Amendment is repealed, that will be bad news for gun rights.


----------



## maybelooking (Nov 3, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> If you truely believe this, you are a paranoid gun nut.


Fortunately,  the VAST MAJORITY OF US believe the exact thing you avoided in the statement you replied to.



> A firearm is personal protection insurance that's all.




At the same time, we also understand REALITY.  Something leftist anti gun nuts have a hard time with.  Leftists always see the world AS THEY THINK IT SHOULD BE......rather than how it REALLY IS.


----------



## maybelooking (Nov 3, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> But I think if the Second Amendment is repealed, that will be bad news for gun rights.


It will also be right around the time hell freezes over.


----------



## Flash (Nov 3, 2021)

Blues Man said:


> An estimated 430 accidental gun deaths annually
> 
> 
> 
> ...


True!   About half the number of people that get struct by lightining each year.

It is more dangerous to walk outside than it is to have a firearm in the home.


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 3, 2021)

Another example of paranoia. Do these people truely believe they are safe?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> 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.




Nope....I am saying that straw buyers are people knowingly selling to criminals......you are lying and saying that the individual selling his shotgun or pistol because they don't want it anymore, is the same thing as a straw buyer.....that is a lie.  These individual sellers are not supplying the guns these criminals use, and you know it......but you want gun registration...in order to get it, you need to get universal background checks.........so you lie....


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Another example of paranoia. Do these people truely believe they are safe?
> View attachment 559897




Nice fake photo.....

If it isn't a fake...

How many people did their guns hurt?


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> 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.




The real cowards?

This man is now trapped in his apartment....because London parks are unsafe for bike riders....

_*On a dry, unseasonably warm evening, still light enough to get home before dark, Harry Speak would usually leap at the chance to do his regular loop around Richmond Park. But rather than cycling the leafy seven-mile track, the 28-year old solicitor, is inside his Hammersmith flat, using the turbo-trainer. *_
*After the violent mugging of professional cyclist and former stockbroker, Alexandar Richardson, Speak is scared to complete a lap he’s done almost weekly for a decade. He’d been riding his own road bike in the park just 24 hours before Richardson’s ordeal. “It’s left me pretty rattled.”
---*
_*Speak and his friends can think of little else. “Am I being overly-cautious? I don’t know. I want to cycle outdoors and make the most of these final days of evening light, but I really don’t want to be part of a diminishing group going in and out of Roehampton Gate as each evening gets darker,” he says. For the time being, he’ll stick to the living room instead.
*_
*Speak’s concerns point to a rising tide of fear across the capital - are these extreme attacks the sign of a terrifying new London crime wave? *

*Across the capital, violent bike theft appears to be on the rise, with more than 10 bike-jacking incidents occurring in the city each week as demand for bikes continues to skyrocket post-pandemic. Attacks often take place on quiet lanes or near canals but according to bike theft platform Stolen Ride, thieves are becoming more “brazen” - as exemplified by Richardson’s attack, which took place in a busy cycling hotspot at 3pm on a Thursday afternoon.*









						Bike wars: How cyclists became the target of violent moped gangs
					

As machete-wielding gangs target cyclists in Richmond, Katie Strick reports on the frightening crime wave - and what is being done




					www.standard.co.uk


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> 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.




Explain this.......

A woman wants a hand gun to keep herself from being gang raped in a London Park.....Britain says she doesn't have  "good reason," to have the gun.

A British member of the House of Lords wants to hunt quail on the land of his private estate......this is a "good reason," and he is given the permit for the gun...

That makes sense to you?


----------



## Abatis (Nov 3, 2021)

Frankeneinstein said:


> hmmmm, the most telling thing about this post is the Freudian slip:
> "Before you even get to the Constitution,"
> Now there is proof of what they are really going after



Yes, it is a slip and it does expose the fundamental flaw in Blocher's and Winkler's (and the ABC/Yahoo article author's) reasoning.

They want to conclude (and have us believe) this theoretical "aspirational" 2nd Amendment is the guiding force pushing state laws expanding gun rights in states, but in fact the movement existed [and exists] "_before you even get to the_ [federal] _Constitution_".

Blocher says those state laws constitute a, "_collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require_."

IOW, that collection of laws were entirely a recognition of a right to arms that developed and were codified without any reference to or reliance on, the federal 2nd Amendment which was my position in *my first post in this thread*.

So, the statement "_before you get to the Constitution_" isn't wrong, it's the conclusion drawn from it by these anti-gunners, that is wrong, misguided and misapplied. That is typical for anti-gunners, misconstructing and perverting history and law . . .

.


----------



## maybelooking (Nov 3, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Another example of paranoia. Do these people truely believe they are safe?
> View attachment 559897





crazy paranoid loons EVERYWHERE!!!!


----------



## maybelooking (Nov 3, 2021)

How many guns can I own without being labeled as paranoid by the anti gun loons?  Inquiring minds want to know!!!!


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 3, 2021)

I prefer to "get drafted into a militia contingent" if I have to keep and bear Arms.


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 3, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> No, This is paranoia,
> "We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and car-jackers and knock-out gamers and rapers, haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping-mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all." --- Wayne LaPierre
> 
> His solution: "Owning a gun is the solution. The world is a scary place. There are bad guys everywhere threatening you and your family, and the only thing they’re afraid of is a gun in _your _hands."
> ...


So what one guy from the NRA says is the opinion of every gun owner.

Got it


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 3, 2021)

maybelooking said:


> How many guns can I own without being labeled as paranoid by the anti gun loons?  Inquiring minds want to know!!!!


none.

Even owning a single firearm for self protection means you're paranoid.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> 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.


Ironic, given your proven predisposition to lie in any such conversation.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> No, This is paranoia,
> "We know, in the world that surrounds us, there are terrorists and home invaders and drug cartels and car-jackers and knock-out gamers and rapers, haters, campus killers, airport killers, shopping-mall killers, road-rage killers, and killers who scheme to destroy our country with massive storms of violence against our power grids, or vicious waves of chemicals or disease that could collapse the society that sustains us all." --- Wayne LaPierre


If gun-relatd violence is so bad that US and the states must eact ever-increasing restrictions on the exercise of the right to keep and bear arms by the law abiding,  then there can be no paranoia found at all in the position that a person has a legitimate reason to want a firrarm for self-defense.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Another example of paranoia. Do these people truely believe they are safe?
> View attachment 559897


Rookie numbers.


----------



## Flash (Nov 3, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> Another example of paranoia. Do these people truely believe they are safe?
> View attachment 559897


What business is it of yours?

They have a fine collection of firearms and it is their business.


----------



## Flash (Nov 3, 2021)

maybelooking said:


> How many guns can I own without being labeled as paranoid by the anti gun loons?  Inquiring minds want to know!!!!


 Right now I have 48 firearms.

Sooooo, if you have 49 or more that makes you a gun nut.


----------



## maybelooking (Nov 3, 2021)

Flash said:


> Right now I have 48 firearms.
> 
> Sooooo, if you have 49 or more that makes you a gun nut.


an anti gun loon might even say you have an (oh the horror) "arsenal"


----------



## Flash (Nov 3, 2021)

maybelooking said:


> an anti gun loon might even say you have an (oh the horror) "arsenal"


Then they would be confused because I have just the proper and reasonable number of firearms to be "well regulated".


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Nope....I am saying that straw buyers are people knowingly selling to criminals......you are lying and saying that the individual selling his shotgun or pistol because they don't want it anymore, is the same thing as a straw buyer.....that is a lie.  These individual sellers are not supplying the guns these criminals use, and you know it......but you want gun registration...in order to get it, you need to get universal background checks.........so you lie....


If a crook wants to buy a gun, he can go to any individual seller and get one. No background check, no worries. The seller isn't even required to know the recipient's name. Your obsession with registration is bullshit. Dealers do background checks and there is no federal registration. Some states do, but states can do what they want.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 3, 2021)

Flash said:


> Right now I have 48 firearms.
> 
> Sooooo, if you have 49 or more that makes you a gun nut.


Doesn't matter how many guns you have. If you don't think reasonable regulation is a good thing, you're a gun nut.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> Nope....I am saying that straw buyers are people knowingly selling to criminals......you are lying and saying that the individual selling his shotgun or pistol because they don't want it anymore, is the same thing as a straw buyer.....that is a lie.  These individual sellers are not supplying the guns these criminals use, and you know it......but you want gun registration...in order to get it, you need to get universal background checks.........so you lie....


Exactly why wouldn't a crook from buying from an individual seller? What is stopping him?


----------



## Flash (Nov 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Doesn't matter how many guns you have. If you don't think reasonable regulation is a good thing, you're a gun nut.


I think "reasonable" regulation is appropriate.  The problem is that you stupid hate filled shithead Moon Bats that don't know jackshit about the Bill of Rights are never reasonable.  You are fucking morons that don't have a clue what reasonable means.

The reason why you shitheads never are reasonable is because you sorry anti American fuckers have the agenda to take away or neuter the right to keep and bear arms because you think that is a threat to making this country a Socialist shithole.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

Flash said:


> I think "reasonable" regulation is appropriate.  The problem is that you stupid hate filled shithead Moon Bats that don't know jackshit about the Bill of Rights are never reasonable.  You are fucking morons that don't have a clue what reasonable means.


"Reasonable" restrictions are both demonstrably necessary and effective.
This excludes the huge, huge, majority of the rstrictions supported by the anti-gun loons.


----------



## Flash (Nov 3, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> "Reasonable" restrictions are both demonstrably necessary and effective.
> This excludes the huge, huge, majority of the rstrictions supported by the anti-gun loons.




It is kinda like abortion.

It is reasonable to allow abortions for legitimate medical reasons like when the life of the mother is in jeopardy.  Some people would argue that it is reasonable to allow  abortion for rape and incest.

However, the unreasonable Moon Bats don't want to be reasonable.  They will tell you with a straight face that it is reasonable to allow abortion on demand for the sake of convenience.

The Moon Bat don't understand what "shall not be infringed" means and they sure as hell have no concept of reasonableness when it comes to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms.

They just want to take firearms away from White people that don't vote Socialist.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 3, 2021)

Flash said:


> They just want to take firearms away from White people that don't vote Socialist.


This is indeed the case.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> If a crook wants to buy a gun, he can go to any individual seller and get one. No background check, no worries. The seller isn't even required to know the recipient's name. Your obsession with registration is bullshit. Dealers do background checks and there is no federal registration. Some states do, but states can do what they want.


The only way to know if a backgriund check was done in a private sale is with gun registration…..gun stores have the gun and the transfer is a known quantity……

You know this and play a game about gun registration


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Exactly why wouldn't a crook from buying from an individual seller? What is stopping him?



Because, as the criminals tell you they dont know if they are cops….that is why they use relatives and other people they know…..

The only reason for universalbackground checks is to get gun registration.

Your fake argument aboutJohn Q citizen selling his glock so he can get the latest model is just crap…you want gun registration.


----------



## Flash (Nov 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> If a crook wants to buy a gun, he can go to any individual seller and get one. No background check, no worries. The seller isn't even required to know the recipient's name. Your obsession with registration is bullshit. Dealers do background checks and there is no federal registration. Some states do, but states can do what they want.




You are confused Moon Bat.

First of all, the Constitution of the US says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

If we have to get government permission (passing a background check to the satisfaction of the government) then we really don't have the Conditional right to keep and bear arms, do we?   That means the Bill of Rights are not really rights.

Second of all, it doesn't matter a nat's ass how many background checks we have if a crook wants to get a firearm to do an illegal act he will get one. 

Third of all, background checks are absolutely worthless.  Just look at the number of mass shootings we have had in the last few years where the shooter had a background check on the weapon he used.  Past behavior is not a very good indicator of future behavior.

All background checks do is infringe upon the citizen's right to keep and bear arms by making it at the discretion of the government instead of a Constitutional right.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 3, 2021)

Flash said:


> I think "reasonable" regulation is appropriate.  The problem is that you stupid hate filled shithead Moon Bats that don't know jackshit about the Bill of Rights are never reasonable.  You are fucking morons that don't have a clue what reasonable means.
> 
> The reason why you shitheads never are reasonable is because you sorry anti American fuckers have the agenda to take away or neuter the right to keep and bear arms because you think that is a threat to making this country a Socialist shithole.


You truly believe that line of bullshit too, don't you?


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 3, 2021)

2aguy said:


> The only way to know if a backgriund check was done in a private sale is with gun registration…..gun stores have the gun and the transfer is a known quantity……
> 
> You know this and play a game about gun registration


Bullshit.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 3, 2021)

Flash said:


> You are confused Moon Bat.
> 
> First of all, the Constitution of the US says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
> 
> ...


Yet we have background checks for dealers without any problems. Do those checks mean we don't have a bill of rights any more?


----------



## Flash (Nov 3, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You truly believe that line of bullshit too, don't you?




Absolutely.  You Moon Bats prove it every time you spout your anti right to keep and bear arms bullshit.

It is not about gun safety because the thugs that use guns for crime aren't going to be deterred by some stupid law.

It is about a political agenda to curtail the potential for opposition to you Libtard's agenda to turn this country into a Socialist Shithole.


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 3, 2021)

Flash said:


> Absolutely.  You Moon Bats prove it every time you spout your anti right to keep and bear arms bullshit.
> 
> It is not about gun safety because the thugs that use guns for crime aren't going to be deterred by some stupid law.
> 
> It is about a political agenda to curtail the potential for opposition to you Libtard's agenda to turn this country into a Socialist Shithole.


Please quote anything I have said about limiting anybody's right to keep  and bear arms, with the exception, of course, of those who can't pass a background check.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Please quote anything I have said about limiting anybody's right to keep  and bear arms, with the exception, of course, of those who can't pass a background check.




You support universal background checks...which is the Trojan horse for gun registration......which you need to eventually ban and confiscate guns.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> Yet we have background checks for dealers without any problems. Do those checks mean we don't have a bill of rights any more?




Background checks at gun stores do not register guns to individual owners......universal background checks would require registering guns to their owners, so that fascists like you would know who owns the gun .........


----------



## BULLDOG (Nov 4, 2021)

2aguy said:


> You support universal background checks...which is the Trojan horse for gun registration......which you need to eventually ban and confiscate guns.


You keep saying that. It's bullshit, but that hasn't made any difference to you in the past.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 4, 2021)

This is more cost effective and rational:

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## Blues Man (Nov 4, 2021)

BULLDOG said:


> You keep saying that. It's bullshit, but that hasn't made any difference to you in the past.


Kind of like the bullshit you throw around when you say people legally carrying concealed weapons kill innocent bystanders


----------



## Vagabond63 (Nov 5, 2021)

Flash said:


> Right now I have 48 firearms.
> 
> Sooooo, if you have 49 or more that makes you a gun nut.


No, if you have registered each weapon, have had sufficient training in the safe use of each weapon, if you keep all your weapons in a secure location, then no, you are not a gun nut... other than the fact you have a need for 48 weapons... surely one is enough?


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 5, 2021)

Abatis said:


> 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.
> 
> ...


Another example of how the gun ‘debate’ has little to do with the Amendment or its case law and the predominance among the right of the aspirational, political Second Amendment is the wrongheaded notion advanced by most conservatives that any firearm regulatory measure manifests as an ‘infringement’ of the Second Amendment right, willfully ignorant of the fact that the Supreme Court has never determined the constitutionality of that measure.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Nov 5, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.
> 
> "Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."
> 
> ...


The 10th Amendment makes any State law that restricts gun right unconstitutional.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 5, 2021)

Otis Mayfield said:


> The article in the OP says that state laws protect gun rights more than the Second Amendment these days.


Much of it is frustration with the Supreme Court perceived to be too hesitant to take on Second Amendment cases – AWBs in particular.

Of course, most of these laws are superfluous or just outright ridiculous – Second Amendment ‘sanctuary’ nonsense being a prime example.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 5, 2021)

With all due respects to the Duke Professor the "huge array of firearms laws" come "after" you get to the Constitution, not before it. The difference is important.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 5, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> The 10th Amendment makes any State law that restricts gun right unconstitutional.


This is as ignorant as it is wrong.

_Barron v. Baltimore_ (1833) – the Supreme Court rules that the Bill of Rights places limits only on the Federal government, not the states; including the Second Amendment.

The states were at complete liberty to regulate firearms as they saw fit – state laws regulating firearms were not only Constitutional, they were also beyond the authority of the Federal courts, immune from judicial review by the Supreme Court.

After the passage of the 14th Amendment, pursuant to the doctrine of substantive due process, the Supreme Court began to incorporate – apply – provisions of the Bill of Rights to the states and local jurisdictions.

_McDonald v. Chicago_ (2010) – the Supreme Court incorporates the Second Amendment to the states and local jurisdictions.

As a consequence, state laws regulating firearms are now subject to review by Federal courts – ultimately the Supreme Court, where their constitutionality can be finally determined.


----------



## whitehall (Nov 5, 2021)

The issue is "relevance" and with all due respects to a Duke Law Professor the only relevance is the United States Constitution, specifically the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## ThunderKiss1965 (Nov 5, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is as ignorant as it is wrong.
> 
> _Barron v. Baltimore_ (1833) – the Supreme Court rules that the Bill of Rights places limits only on the Federal government, not the states; including the Second Amendment.
> 
> ...


"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." 10th 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".  2nd Amendment

Any laws passed by the States that infringe on the right to bear arms is unconstitutional.


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 5, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> No, if you have registered each weapon, have had sufficient training in the safe use of each weapon, if you keep all your weapons in a secure location, then no, you are not a gun nut... other than the fact you have a need for 48 weapons... surely one is enough?




Except if you hunt...need rifles and maybe shotguns depending on the game......if you compete in 3 gun....you need a rifle, pistol and shotgun......if you are a cowboy shooter...you need a repeating rifle, SAA revolver, and a double barreled coach gun....and for self defense, a good rifle or shotgun, or both....one for you and the wife, plus maybe one for the kids......and pistols...one full size for the home, and smaller one for carrying in public...

You have no idea what you are talking about...

This girl needs more than one......


And this one...


And this woman doing a report...


And this Cowgirl....


----------



## 2aguy (Nov 5, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> No, if you have registered each weapon, have had sufficient training in the safe use of each weapon, if you keep all your weapons in a secure location, then no, you are not a gun nut... other than the fact you have a need for 48 weapons... surely one is enough?




Since you poked your head up.....

Do you believe that a woman who doesn't want to be gang raped in a London park does not have "good reason," to own and carry a gun to prevent being gang raped?

Do you believe, instead, that a member of the House of Lords, who wants to go quail hunting with his wealthy friends, on his private land on his country estate, has "good reason," to get a gun?   Over the woman getting her gun?


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 5, 2021)

ThunderKiss1965 said:


> "The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the states, are reserved to the states respectively, or to the people." 10th 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".  2nd Amendment
> 
> Any laws passed by the States that infringe on the right to bear arms is unconstitutional.


_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Another example of how the gun ‘debate’ has little to do with the Amendment or its case law and the predominance among the right of the aspirational, political Second Amendment is the wrongheaded notion advanced by most conservatives that any firearm regulatory measure manifests as an ‘infringement’ of the Second Amendment right,


Fortunately, this represents an exceptionally tiny fraction of the pro-gun side.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 5, 2021)

Vagabond63 said:


> No, if you have registered each weapon, have had sufficient training in the safe use of each weapon, if you keep all your weapons in a secure location, then no, you are not a gun nut.


How does having an unregistered firearm make you a gun nut?


----------



## Abatis (Nov 5, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Another example of how the gun ‘debate’ has little to do with the Amendment or its case law and the predominance among the right of the aspirational, political Second Amendment is the wrongheaded notion advanced by most conservatives that any firearm regulatory measure manifests as an ‘infringement’ of the Second Amendment right, willfully ignorant of the fact that the Supreme Court has never determined the constitutionality of that measure.



Take a breath Pops, you're sounding winded from the exertion of scrambling around for a response.  

None of that crapstorm spoke to anything I wrote.  

The *only* thing I was talking about was the _*DIFFERENT*_ judicial interpretations of the 2nd Amendment since courts have been speaking on the RKBA.   SCOTUS has been saying one thing consistently from _Cruikshank_ in 1876 to 2016 in _Caetano_; the lower federal courts were saying something diametrically opposite, for 66 years between 1942 (_Tot_ and _Cases_) to 2008 when _Heller_ invalidated _Tot _and _Cases_--.

Do you disagree with that?  

Do you even understand that your vaunted and sacrosanct "judicial Second Amendment” is a schizophrenic mess?  tell me, which persona do you identify with, the one that dwelled in the lower courts or the one that's alive and well in SCOTUS?

You denigrate this "aspirational Second Amendment" as being disconnected, but it is much closer to the truth than the collective right "judicial Second Amendment” you seem to want to ignore (or you actually embrace). 

Which persona will SCOTUS align with in June in NYSRPA?  Will it be the Blocher & Winkler and your "judicial" persona that, given your incoherence above, you can't even recognize has been inconsistent, or will SCOTUS' NYSRPA holding fall closer to the "aspirational Second Amendment", a holding along the lines of what the gun nuts believe, a holding that is going to stake-out territory of the right to arms yet uncharted?

I really need to ask, do you know what the actual case law is, or are you a complete poseur?


----------



## Abatis (Nov 5, 2021)

whitehall said:


> With all due respects to the Duke Professor the "huge array of firearms laws" come "after" you get to the Constitution, not before it. The difference is important.



That entire Duke Center for Firearms Law group hasn't met a gun control law they don't like and if Adam Winkler is speaking, you know anti-individual right gruel is flowing heavy.

.


----------



## Polishprince (Nov 18, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.
> 
> "Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."
> 
> ...




The 2nd Amendment doesn't give Americans any rights.   All of our God Given rights, are endowed to us by Almighty God, not the government.

Even if our government wasn't wise enough to acknowledge  it, it wouldn't change the fact that legal firearms are tremendous public policy which helps America be one of the most polite nations on earth.


----------



## danielpalos (Nov 18, 2021)

I agree to disagree. 

This is a sovereign, State's right secured by our Second Amendment:

_The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._


----------



## Abatis (Nov 18, 2021)

danielpalos said:


> I agree to disagree.



No, you disagree just to be contrarian, ignoring the meaning of words and legal canons.



danielpalos said:


> This is a sovereign, State's right secured by our Second Amendment:



The 2nd Amendment has never been inspected to secure or held to protect any right of a state.  No state has ever been granted standing to argue a rights injury under the 2nd Amendment, only individual citizens. 

You are spouting nonsense.



danielpalos said:


> _The defense and protection of the state and of the United States is an obligation of all persons within the state. The legislature shall provide for the discharge of this obligation and for the maintenance and regulation of an organized militia._



And that passage appears in no legal determination or court holding. 

The action and effect of militia *LAW *described in that passage *no longer exists*.  It was extinguished, destroyed, eliminated by Congress when the Dick Act and subsequent National Defense Acts were ratified and enacted.  The citizens are no longer under any impressment under law to serve in any milita and are forbidden to form a milita on their own.

You use the word *OBLIGATION* twice in that passage.

On what planet, using what lexicon is a legal *OBLIGATION*, placed on either the citizenry or a political subdivision (state) ever considered a _right_? 

Both the claim of a _right_ by a citizen, and recognition of a _right_ from a government is the condition of being _free_ from obligation.

Your position is linguistically and logically incongruent and legally incoherent and you should abandon it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Nov 22, 2021)

Abatis said:


> Take a breath Pops, you're sounding winded from the exertion of scrambling around for a response.
> 
> None of that crapstorm spoke to anything I wrote.
> 
> ...


The aspirational, political Second Amendment is the creature of rightwing partisan rhetoric, devoid of legal, Constitutional merit.

Indeed, as correctly noted in the OP article, the aspirational Second Amendment is more about the right’s knee-jerk opposition to all government regulation in general, having little to do with the actual regulation of firearms.

In essence, Republican state lawmakers are enacting ‘protections’ with regard to bearing arms where no government regulation exists, nor will it ever exist – not unlike contriving a ‘solution’ to a ‘problem’ that doesn’t exist.

There’s nothing necessarily wrong with this, of course – provided one isn’t so naïve or delusional to believe such ‘protections’ have anything to do with Constitutional law.

They don’t.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 22, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The aspirational, political Second Amendment is the creature of rightwing partisan rhetoric, devoid of legal, Constitutional merit.


All of which pales in comparison to the dishonesty and abbject ignorance of the 2nd espoused by the anti-gun left.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 22, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The aspirational, political Second Amendment is the creature of rightwing partisan rhetoric, devoid of legal, Constitutional merit.
> 
> Indeed, as correctly noted in the OP article, the aspirational Second Amendment is more about the right’s knee-jerk opposition to all government regulation in general, having little to do with the actual regulation of firearms.
> 
> ...



And again, none of that crapstorm spoke to anything I wrote -- and in typical fashion, you didn't attempt to address a single question I asked of you.

Try this easy one; what are the cases / citations you would hold up as representing the "judicial Second Amendment"?

As posers do, you wrap yourself with spectacular shroud of bullshit and bluster, signifying nothing and saying even less.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 23, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> Prove this to be true.


I think the NRA is a dying organization that has lost its way.  It’s become a fund raising organization, not the educational and advocating organization it used to be.


----------



## AZrailwhale (Nov 23, 2021)

M14 Shooter said:


> If a "measure" has not been ruled constitutional by the court, how can you, with any honesty or acumen,  say it is constitutional?


You’ve got it backwards, it’s assumed to be constitutional until ruled otherwise.


----------



## Abatis (Nov 23, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> You’ve got it backwards, it’s assumed to be constitutional until ruled otherwise.


SCOTUS said laws speaking on, "*the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms*", are only "*presumtively lawful"* which means that presumption may be rebutted and challenged.

Hopefully SCOTUS in the near future will set standards of scrutiny and of course for 'strict scrutiny' the presumption, the assumption is that the law is _unconstitutional_.


----------



## M14 Shooter (Nov 23, 2021)

AZrailwhale said:


> You’ve got it backwards, it’s assumed to be constitutional until ruled otherwise.


Its the same thing.
This is why Clayton believes the TX abortion law is constitutional - not that he has the intellectual honesty to admit it.


----------



## Oddball (Nov 23, 2021)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.
> 
> "Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."
> 
> ...


*
This is why meaningful, constructive, good faith debate...*

Says the craven coward drive-by douche canoe, who has run from each and every meaningful, constructive, good faith debate he has been called out to.


----------



## Innocynioc (Feb 9, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I suspect most of the gun nut cowards here aren't ranchers, and have never had a real reason to fear being pulled out of their car, yet they  still whine about needing to be armed 24/7. Do you live in NYC  or Chicago? No. Gun nuts are just cowards. Admit it. What makes gun nuts so afraid to experience every day life without a gun strapped to their pansy ass?


Availing oneself of doing everything reasonable to protect oneself and others is not cowardice it is intelligence at work.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The aspirational, political Second Amendment is the creature of rightwing partisan rhetoric, devoid of legal, Constitutional merit.
> 
> Indeed, as correctly noted in the OP article, the aspirational Second Amendment is more about the right’s knee-jerk opposition to all government regulation in general, having little to do with the actual regulation of firearms.
> 
> ...



Saul Goodman - consaquenchally lawarfying...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 9, 2022)

Abatis said:


> And again, none of that crapstorm spoke to anything I wrote -- and in typical fashion, you didn't attempt to address a single question I asked of you.
> 
> Try this easy one; what are the cases / citations you would hold up as representing the "judicial Second Amendment"?
> 
> As posers do, you wrap yourself with spectacular shroud of bullshit and bluster, signifying nothing and saying even less.




Saul Goodman got his law degree for a Philippines university he sent a matchbook cover to - then paid a Puerto Rican kid to take the bar for him.

Outside of slip and fall - he just isn't what anyone would call a "legal scholar."


----------



## Death-Ninja (Feb 9, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?


    Above comment is so ludicrous it descends into satire, he extends exact same argument corrupt DA did in Rittenhouse trial, "everyone takes a beating every once in a while," and you are a coward if you resist such victimization!

 Such beliefs are very likely the result of vast vast abundance & privilege and are utterly devoid of rationality, so much so you almost must conclude the idiot issuing such is either trolling, or psychologically damaged....


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (Feb 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is why meaningful, constructive, good faith debate concerning the Second Amendment, its meaning, and its application as a matter of regulatory law is impossible.


I’d like to thank the conservatives subscribing to this thread for proving correct the thread’s premise.


----------



## Wyatt earp (Feb 9, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?


What do you care? And what happened to my body my choice...


----------



## Abatis (Feb 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> I’d like to thank the conservatives subscribing to this thread for proving correct the thread’s premise.



More bluster and bullshit.

Answer the easy question, what are the cases / citations you would hold up as representing the "judicial Second Amendment"?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 9, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> I’d like to thank the conservatives subscribing to this thread for proving correct the thread’s premise.


Oh, that's what you think that means, huh Saul?


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 9, 2022)

Death-Ninja said:


> Above comment is so ludicrous it descends into satire, he extends exact same argument corrupt DA did in Rittenhouse trial, "everyone takes a beating every once in a while," and you are a coward if you resist such victimization!
> 
> Such beliefs are very likely the result of vast vast abundance & privilege and are utterly devoid of rationality, so much so you almost must conclude the idiot issuing such is either trolling, or psychologically damaged....


Well no. If the cowards had ever actually been a victim, that would at least be a rational for feeling the need to be armed 24/7. Being afraid of something that has never happened, and is likely to never happen is just being a coward.


----------



## Plow Boy (Feb 9, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I suspect most of the gun nut cowards here aren't ranchers, and have never had a real reason to fear being pulled out of their car, yet they  still whine about needing to be armed 24/7. Do you live in NYC  or Chicago? No. Gun nuts are just cowards. Admit it. What makes gun nuts so afraid to experience every day life without a gun strapped to their pansy ass?


You are a loud mouth, I have been trailed by gang members, and the only thing that saved me was, that I had a gun on me.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 9, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Well no. If the cowards had ever actually been a victim, that would at least be a rational for feeling the need to be armed 24/7. Being afraid of something that has never happened, and is likely to never happen is just being a coward.


has your house ever caught on fire??


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 9, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Well no. If the cowards had ever actually been a victim, that would at least be a rational for feeling the need to be armed 24/7. Being afraid of something that has never happened, and is likely to never happen is just being a coward.



If you can't disarm Der Juden, how will you EVER get the camps going?

Come on people, Bulldyke has an AGENDA...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 9, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> has your house ever caught on fire??



Come on, Joe Biden's crack pipes will make sure THAT doesn't happen again...


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 9, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> has your house ever caught on fire??


No, but I do have smoke alarms and fire extinguishers. I don't strap a fire extinguisher to my leg every time I go out, though.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 9, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> No, but I do have smoke alarms and fire extinguishers. I don't strap a fire extinguisher to my leg every time I go out, though.



Funny, I have a fire extinguisher next to my dryer every time I turn it on.

But then, I'm not trying to put my dryer into a force labor death camp....


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 9, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> No, but I do have smoke alarms and fire extinguishers. I don't strap a fire extinguisher to my leg every time I go out, though.


why would you strap it to your leg when you leave the house?? thats really stupid,,


but as you said you took measures to avoid a bad situation from getting worse by having those things available,,


----------



## Death-Ninja (Feb 9, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Well no. If the cowards had ever actually been a victim, that would at least be a rational for feeling the need to be armed 24/7. Being afraid of something that has never happened, and is likely to never happen is just being a coward.


I have your IQ running in the mid to upper 70's, your silly suppositions being so ludicrous and absent intellectual support, I would not be least bit surprised to learn you are currently incarcerated within a house of detention, or perhaps are barred by law from access to firearms, but mostly it indicates a childish disconnect from the real, a mentality bordering upon dream state...


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 9, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> why would you strap it to your leg when you leave the house?? thats really stupid,,
> 
> 
> but as you said you took measures to avoid a bad situation from getting worse by having those things available,,


Perhaps I wasn't clear when making my point. I agree that carrying a fire extinguisher every time I go out would be really stupid just like carrying a gun every time I go out would be really stupid. .


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 9, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Perhaps I wasn't clear when making my point. I agree that carrying a fire extinguisher every time I go out would be really stupid just like carrying a gun every time I go out would be really stupid. .




Bulldyke, ARE you currently incarcerated?


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 9, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Perhaps I wasn't clear when making my point. I agree that carrying a fire extinguisher every time I go out would be really stupid just like carrying a gun every time I go out would be really stupid. .


how are you going to put a fire out of youre not home??

having a gun on you when youre out will/may save you if danger comes your way, just like having an extinguisher in your house will/might save you or your house if a fire comes breaks out,,

statistic prove both to be true,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 9, 2022)

Death-Ninja said:


> I have your IQ running in the mid to upper 70's, your silly suppositions being so ludicrous and absent intellectual support, I would not be least bit surprised to learn you are currently incarcerated within a house of detention, or perhaps are barred by law from access to firearms, but mostly it indicates a childish disconnect from the real, a mentality bordering upon dream state...


Gun nuts always seem to be obsessed with IQs. No matter how much you hope it will, your gun fetish doesn't compensate for your IQ being smaller than you wish, or anything else being smaller, for that matter.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 9, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Gun nuts always seem to be obsessed with IQs. No matter how much you hope it will, your gun fetish doesn't compensate for your IQ being smaller than you wish, or anything else being smaller, for that matter.



He's right though Bulldyke - estimating your IQ at 70 is overly generous.

Come on, you know you're not smart.


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 9, 2022)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bulldyke, ARE you currently incarcerated?


You caught me. I'm a prisoner of love, but she made me promise not to let her husband find out.


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 9, 2022)

Uncensored2008 said:


> He's right though Bulldyke - estimating your IQ at 70 is overly generous.
> 
> Come on, you know you're not smart.


I know some really smart people. Not one of them ever told me they were smart.


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 9, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> You caught me. I'm a prisoner of love, but she made me promise not to let her husband find out.


It would devastate a man to find out a - well whatever the fuck gender you think you are - is messing with his woman...


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 9, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I know some really smart people. Not one of them ever told me they were smart.



Bulldyke - everyone seems smart to you.

There's a reason for that....


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 9, 2022)

Uncensored2008 said:


> Bulldyke - everyone seems smart to you.
> 
> There's a reason for that....


I will admit that there is something I can learn from everybody. From you, I learned that nutbags rarely believe they are as goofy as they really are.


----------



## Death-Ninja (Feb 9, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Gun nuts always seem to be obsessed with IQs. No matter how much you hope it will, your gun fetish doesn't compensate for your IQ being smaller than you wish, or anything else being smaller, for that matter.


You keep referring to "gun nuts," and cowards, afraid to walk the paths of life unshod, pure trolling pejorative, and very likely safely ensconced within a basement, or cell somewhere, marinating in some kind of weird tough-guy fantasy of how it is and how it isn't. Are you a convicted felon???


----------



## westwall (Feb 9, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> has your house ever caught on fire??





Bullcrappy, doesn't have a house.  It's a leech crashing on friends couches.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 10, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> I’d like to thank the conservatives subscribing to this thread for proving correct the thread’s premise.



You are such a poser, I tore your dumb OP apart on the first page of this thread and have continued to knock out every single leg of support you have tried since the OP.

You have demonstrated no independent knowledge of the particular laws or constitutional principles at work here, all you can do is parrot the goofy premises of the article you linked to in the OP.

You are not smart enough to know that the theory of the article is completely backwards, it's the pro-regulation, anti-gun side that is the"aspirational 2ndA"-- the gun rights side is the one with SCOTUS supporting it.  I have asked you again and again to cite the judicial decisions that support your theory, you refuse.

Tell me, which examples of the "judicial 2ndA" support your pro-regulation, anti-gun side:
​_United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)​_Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)​_United States v. Miller_, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)​_Lewis v. United States,_ 445 U.S. 55 (1980)​_District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)​_McDonald v. City of Chicago_, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)​_Caetano v. Massachusetts_, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)​
The very narrow illegitimately constructed "judicial" support the regulation side has enjoyed for 14 years, was destroyed less than a week after your article was published, at SCOTUS in the oral arguments in _NYSRPA v Bruen_.

It is clear that the "two-step" scheme the gun control endorsing Circuits have employed since _Heller_, is going to be gutted.  The Circuits all know it; the 9th and 3rd Circuits have held-up enforcement of their decisions sustaining high-cap mag bans and assault weapon bans until _NYSRPA_ is settled.

The gun rights "judicial 2ndA" is kicking the ass of the political, wishful thinking, anti-gun side.

You talk about state lawmakers operating past the orbit of the 2ndA but right now the *political* anti-2ndA machine in New York is in panic-mode, desperately trying to implement a myriad of new gun laws and citizen restrictions to have in effect when the enforcement of the real 2ndA is _finally_ begun in New York.

Your entire premise is backwards, it is the *pro-regulation, anti-gun* side that is operating under an "aspirational" fantasy of what they want the 2nd Amendment to be.  The gun rights side is operating under the _true_ meaning which aligns with the "judicial 2nA" that has been enforced by SCOTUS without deviation since 1876, _*and will continue to be enforced*_,

Your best bet is to just be quiet, stop with these completely wrong posts that we all will point to an say, *"well, that didn't age well*" and just let this dog of a thread roll off the front page.  

You really should hunker-down and prepare for the brutal reckoning that you anti-gun / anti-Constitution traitors will be suffering in June.


----------



## Turtlesoup (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?


There are lots of bad bad people in the world----
Having a gun is prudent planning.


----------



## Batcat (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?


I’m 75 years old with a bad hip that should be replaced, a bad back and COPD.. I am not going to able to take on an attacker half a century younger than I am and win and I am not so stupid as to assume I can. 

My noticeable limp and age makes me a weak member of the herd for a potential predator to victimize. 

If I am attacked by someone who I honestly feel wishes to put me in the hospital or six feet under I will attempt to stop the attack with my legally concealed .38 snub nosed revolver. 

I don’t live in fear but I do practice situational awareness which basically means I am alert to what is happen around me and I don’t walk down dark streets with a cell phone glued to my ear.


----------



## Blues Man (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Well no. If the cowards had ever actually been a victim, that would at least be a rational for feeling the need to be armed 24/7. Being afraid of something that has never happened, and is likely to never happen is just being a coward.


So you finally admit that there are actually people who have been victims of violent crimes.

I never used to worry about it until I was jumped, beaten and robbed by 3 pieces of shit so I understood a long time ago that there is real violence in the world,  What the fuck took you so long>


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 10, 2022)

westwall said:


> Bullcrappy, doesn't have a house.  It's a leech crashing on friends couches.



Did Bulldyke get kicked out of mom's basement?


----------



## Uncensored2008 (Feb 10, 2022)

Batcat said:


> I’m 75 years old with a bad hip that should be replaced, a bad back and COPD.. I am not going to able to take on an attacker half a century younger than I am and win and I am not so stupid as to assume I can.
> 
> My noticeable limp and age makes me a weak member of the herd for a potential predator to victimize.
> 
> ...



Bulldyke believes that it has the right to prey on you. Bulldyke looks for the weak and elderly. The idea that one of it's victims could fight back effectively is a chilling thought indeed to those like Bullydyke

It still remembers...


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?



Why can't we be more Progressive in our gun ownership where only the good government guys have all the guys? You know, like Xi's China, Putin's Russia, Un's North Korea?


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

Death-Ninja said:


> You keep referring to "gun nuts," and cowards, afraid to walk the paths of life unshod, pure trolling pejorative, and very likely safely ensconced within a basement, or cell somewhere, marinating in some kind of weird tough-guy fantasy of how it is and how it isn't. Are you a convicted felon???


I almost wish I could say yes, just for your sake, but no. A few speeding tickets are the total of my criminal history. I have spent some time helping ex-cons find work, and get their shit together though.


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

Batcat said:


> I’m 75 years old with a bad hip that should be replaced, a bad back and COPD.. I am not going to able to take on an attacker half a century younger than I am and win and I am not so stupid as to assume I can.
> 
> My noticeable limp and age makes me a weak member of the herd for a potential predator to victimize.
> 
> ...


We are more alike than you know, and situational awareness is quite often called for, but that is not the same as a rational belief that you need to be armed 24/7.


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> We are more alike than you know, and situational awareness is quite often called for, but that is not the same as a rational belief that you need to be armed 24/7.





Who said 24/7?  We are armed when we leave the house.

If you didn't have hyperbole you would have nothing.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> We are more alike than you know, and situational awareness is quite often called for, but that is not the same as a rational belief that you need to be armed 24/7.


what hrs of the day do you NOT need to be armed??


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

Blues Man said:


> So you finally admit that there are actually people who have been victims of violent crimes.
> 
> I never used to worry about it until I was jumped, beaten and robbed by 3 pieces of shit so I understood a long time ago that there is real violence in the world,  What the fuck took you so long>


Of course there are victims of violent crime, and there are times when being armed is the best logical choice. I have always said that. Not everywhere you might be, and not 2/47. My neighbor keeps bees, but he doesn't wear his bee suit 24/7.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Of course there are victims of violent crime, and there are times when being armed is the best logical choice. I have always said that. Not everywhere you might be, and not 2/47. My neighbor keeps bees, but he doesn't wear his bee suit 24/7.


then tell us what hrs of the day do we not need to be armed,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Why can't we be more Progressive in our gun ownership where only the good government guys have all the guys? You know, like Xi's China, Putin's Russia, Un's North Korea?


Thank you. That's a perfect example of twisted right wing logic. Either every nutjob in America is fully armed at all times, or we become China, Russia, or N Korea. You realize there is a vast range in between those two possibilities, don't you?


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Thank you. That's a perfect example of twisted right wing logic. Either every nutjob in America is fully armed at all times, or we become China, Russia, or N Korea. You realize there is a vast range in between those two possibilities, don't you?


come on man,, just tell us what hrs of the day we dont need to be armed and we wont need to be armed 24/7 and you dont have to be so offended by it,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

westwall said:


> Who said 24/7?  We are armed when we leave the house.
> 
> If you didn't have hyperbole you would have nothing.


I'm not going to look up every time some gun nut claims he is always armed. I'm not dumb enough to believe you haven't read the posts. On a side note, I know people who are armed every time they even step into their yard, and the few times, inside their homes that they don't have a gun strapped to their body, there is one easily accessible in each room.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I'm not going to look up every time some gun nut claims he is always armed. I'm not dumb enough to believe you haven't read the posts. On a side note, I know people who are armed every time they even step into their yard, and the few times, inside their homes that they don't have a gun strapped to their body, there is one easily accessible in each room.


you ever going to tell us what hrs we should be armed??


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> what hrs of the day do you NOT need to be armed??


Are you really dumb enough to think an appropriate time to be armed can be determined strictly by what time it is?


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> then tell us what hrs of the day do we not need to be armed,,


I'm trying not to point out how stupid your question is.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Are you really dumb enough to think an appropriate time to be armed can be determined strictly by what time it is?


so based on the house fire analogy that says its best to have an extinguisher available at all times its best to be armed at all times,,

as the old saying goes
"best to have it and not need it than need it and not have it"


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I'm trying not to point out how stupid your question is.


please point it out,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> come on man,, just tell us what hrs of the day we dont need to be armed and we wont need to be armed 24/7 and you dont have to be so offended by it,,


I'm not offended by your question. I'm amused.


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> you ever going to tell us what hrs we should be armed??


No.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> No.


you wont only because it shows your narrative to be that of a crazy person,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> please point it out,,


No need. You have pointed it out yourself.


----------



## progressive hunter (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> No need. You have pointed it out yourself.


yes I did,, and it shows what a nutjob you are,,


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

progressive hunter said:


> yes I did,, and it shows what a nutjob you are,,


I'm sure you hope it did.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Thank you. That's a perfect example of twisted right wing logic. Either every nutjob in America is fully armed at all times, or we become China, Russia, or N Korea. You realize there is a vast range in between those two possibilities, don't you?



Not interested in any "vast range" only "Shall not be infringed"


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Not interested in any "vast range" only "Shall not be infringed"


I understand. You're mind is made up, and facts just confuse you. What else could be expected from your cult?


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I'm trying not to point out how stupid your question is.





Good, because your prior statement is about as retarded as they come.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Feb 10, 2022)

Abatis said:


> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)


These gun grabbers actually believe that this case helps them.
 

_"The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."_

Thus, *ALL Federal gun laws* are unconstitutional ON THEIR FACES and all should be universally stricken immediately.  


Abatis said:


> _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)


Same as Cruikshank.

_"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state."_

*ALL FEDERAL GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.*



Abatis said:


> _United States v. Miller_, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)


This one is even WORSE for the gun-grabbing commies.  

_"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense."_

By deduction, ANY WEAPON used by the military would be a part of "ordinary military equipment" and WOULD BE protected by the 2A, including the M60 and M249 machine guns.



Abatis said:


> _ Lewis v. United States,_ 445 U.S. 55 (1980)


Not familiar with this one.



Abatis said:


> _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)


Pretty much shoots them down again, as it applies to D.C.



Abatis said:


> _McDonald v. City of Chicago_, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)


Makes Heller apply to the states under the 14th Amendment.



Abatis said:


> _Caetano v. Massachusetts_, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)


Not familiar with this one.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 10, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Thus, *ALL Federal gun laws* are unconstitutional ON THEIR FACES and all should be universally stricken immediately.
> 
> *snip*
> 
> *ALL FEDERAL GUN LAWS ARE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.*


All state and local gun control laws are unconstitutional as well.


----------



## Batcat (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> We are more alike than you know, and situational awareness is quite often called for, but that is not the same as a rational belief that you need to be armed 24/7.


Well if I had the gift of knowing my future and I woke up one day realizing that I would have to use lethal force to protect my health or life, I would just stay home.

Unfortunately I lack that ability.

I have been legally carrying a concealed hand gun for over a quarter of a century and since I don’t play with it in public, it just sits quietly in a pocket holster in my jacket or pants pocket endangering no one.

I took the time and effort and spent the money to get my concealed weapons permit with the intention of carrying on a regular basis and I have and will continue to do so.

Why are you so concerned? Do you distrust honest citizens? Perhaps you feel we are not responsible.









						Concealed Carry Permit Holders More Law Abiding Government Police
					

2nd Amendment critics commonly portray concealed carry permit holders as dangerous to American society. They are More Law Abiding Government Police.




					ncsportsmenslaw.com
				












						7 Reasons More People Should Concealed Carry
					

Police are the ideal intermediaries, but personal safety cannot be entirely entrusted to others. It is time for citizens to responsibly conceal a firearm.




					thefederalist.com


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 10, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> I’d like to thank the conservatives subscribing to this thread for proving correct the thread’s premise.



What regulatory law does the 2nd Amendment require?  Shall not be infringed is pretty clear.  There's no reason to expound on that with regulations or additional law, certainly not in laws that infringe.  Because of the infringements, though, many states have had to create laws to protect the right but if all the laws, supporting and infringing, were removed, we'd have exactly what we need: Shall not be infringed.


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

westwall said:


> Good, because your prior statement is about as retarded as they come.


I'm sure you are an expert on the subject.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Well no. If the cowards had ever actually been a victim, that would at least be a rational for feeling the need to be armed 24/7. Being afraid of something that has never happened, and is likely to never happen is just being a coward.


There are thousands of dead, unarmed, innocent, people who might have been saved had they been armed.  Worst case, they wouldn't be more dead for having been armed.

There are thousands more of alive, armed, innocents, who are alive because they were armed.  Thousands more alive who were innocent and unarmed because someone else was armed and saved them.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> No, but I do have smoke alarms and fire extinguishers. I don't strap a fire extinguisher to my leg every time I go out, though.


That's completely senseless.  It's a different problem and a different tool.  If you cross the room to grab your fire extinguisher, your small fire isn't going to reach out and kill you first.  If your home is invaded and you have to cross the room, open your safe, and grab a gun, you're very possibly dead.


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Well if I had the gift of knowing my future and I woke up one day realizing that I would have to use lethal force to protect my health or life, I would just stay home.
> 
> Unfortunately I lack that ability.
> 
> ...


I distrust gun nut Rambo wannabees who dream of the chance to shoot somebody.


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> That's completely senseless.  It's a different problem and a different tool.  If you cross the room to grab your fire extinguisher, your small fire isn't going to reach out and kill you first.  If your home is invaded and you have to cross the room, open your safe, and grab a gun, you're very possibly dead.


How many people have you had to gun down in your kitchen?


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Of course there are victims of violent crime, and there are times when being armed is the best logical choice. I have always said that. Not everywhere you might be, and not 2/47. My neighbor keeps bees, but he doesn't wear his bee suit 24/7.


Bees are not a threat everywhere you go and you can predict the likelihood that you won't get stung.  And, unless you're allergic, the damage caused by a sting is not permanent.

On the other hand, with the very same odds of a sting away from one's own hives, a person who's allergic will always carry their EpiPen.   The chances of getting stung are very low.  When I go out, the chances of me being attacked are very low - though getting higher and higher every day.  But the potential outcome is serious so I prepare for that risk.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> How many people have you had to gun down in your kitchen?


So you're suggesting that someone can only prepare to defend themselves after having been attacked?  Only those who have been shot can carry a gun?  Only women who have been raped?  Only after having been victimized can a person prepare to defend themselves?

Please cancel your fire insurance until after your house burns down.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Feb 10, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> All state and local gun control laws are unconstitutional as well.


Correct, thanks to _McDonald v. Chicago_.

But, one step at a time.


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> So you're suggesting that someone can only prepare to defend themselves after having been attacked?  Only those who have been shot can carry a gun?  Only women who have been raped?  Only after having been victimized can a person prepare to defend themselves?
> 
> Please cancel your fire insurance until after your house burns down.


Is that why you always have a fire extinguisher strapped to your leg?
Fire departments responded to a fire every 23 seconds in 2020. Someone was shot every 4.55 minutes. Fire is a more likely danger.


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I'm not going to look up every time some gun nut claims he is always armed. I'm not dumb enough to believe you haven't read the posts. On a side note, I know people who are armed every time they even step into their yard, and the few times, inside their homes that they don't have a gun strapped to their body, there is one easily accessible in each room.


Then you know me.

I have a gun readily available at all times.  I don't always wear one on my hip but I'd like to be more consistent in doing even that.  Sometimes I go out without one but there is always at least one in the car.  The biggest gap I have is when I go into the store.  If I didn't have my EDC on when I went out the door, the plan is to get one out of the car.  Sometimes I don't grab it but that is fewer and fewer times these days.

So I'm not a perfect 24/7 carrier but I'm close.


----------



## CrusaderFrank (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I understand. You're mind is made up, and facts just confuse you. What else could be expected from your cult?



Yeah people who follow the American Constitution are a "cult"


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I distrust gun nut Rambo wannabees who dream of the chance to shoot somebody.


Can you provide any links or news stories of cases where that's happened?  Where someone legally carrying a gun went searching for trouble so he could shoot someone?


----------



## woodwork201 (Feb 10, 2022)

Batcat said:


> Well if I had the gift of knowing my future and I woke up one day realizing that I would have to use lethal force to protect my health or life, I would just stay home.
> 
> Unfortunately I lack that ability.
> 
> ...



As your linked stories clearly demonstrate: an armed society is a polite society.


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

CrusaderFrank said:


> Yeah people who follow the American Constitution are a "cult"


So where does the constitution require being armed 24/7?


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> As your linked stories clearly demonstrate: an armed society is a polite society.


 A 2017 National Bureau of Economic Research study revealed that right-to-carry laws increase, rather than decrease, violent crime. Higher rates of gun ownership is correlated with higher homicide rates. Gun possession is correlated with increased road rage.

There have been times when a civilian with a gun successfully intervened in a shooting, but these instances are rare. Those who carry guns often have their own guns used against them. And a civilian with a gun is more likely to be killed than to kill an attacker.


----------



## Batcat (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I distrust gun nut Rambo wannabees who dream of the chance to shoot somebody.


Did you notice my statement that if I could predict when I woke up that I would have to use lethal force that day, I would just stay home. 

The last thing I ever want to have to do in this world he use lethal force to stop an attack. Many people who do use lethal force suffer psychological problems after. Many are prosecuted or sued in a civilian court which can easily bankrupt a person even if they are not convicted or lose.


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I distrust gun nut Rambo wannabees who dream of the chance to shoot somebody.





That's ok.  We don't trust you either.  For a damned good reason too.  You are batshit crazy.


----------



## Batcat (Feb 10, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Bees are not a threat everywhere you go and you can predict the likelihood that you won't get stung.  And, unless you're allergic, the damage caused by a sting is not permanent.
> 
> On the other hand, with the very same odds of a sting away from one's own hives, a person who's allergic will always carry their EpiPen.   The chances of getting stung are very low.  When I go out, the chances of me being attacked are very low - though getting higher and higher every day.  But the potential outcome is serious so I prepare for that risk.


Your neighbor puts on his bee suit when he knows he is going to be around bees. 

When I leave to go shopping I have no way to know what might happen so I prefer to be prepared. 

I doubt if I will ever have a reason to use my concealed revolver and I haven’t in 25 years, but if I do I will have my revolver with me. If attacked by someone who intends to serious injure or kill me I will attempt to stop the attack. At least I will have a chance.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I distrust gun nut Rambo wannabees who dream of the chance to shoot somebody.


We don't give a rat fuck who your pussy ass trusts.  GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

westwall said:


> That's ok.  We don't trust you either.  For a damned good reason too.  You are batshit crazy.


You believe the big lie, so you judgement sucks pretty bad at best. I don't think I care as much about your opinion as you seem to think I should.


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> We don't give a rat fuck who your pussy ass trusts.  GO FUCK YOURSELF!!!


OK boss. I'll do anything you say, but please just don't use those caps lock on me again.


----------



## westwall (Feb 10, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> You believe the big lie, so you judgement sucks pretty bad at best. I don't think I care as much about your opinion as you seem to think I should.




You PUSH the big lie.  Moron.


----------



## BULLDOG (Feb 10, 2022)

westwall said:


> You PUSH the big lie.  Moron.


Really? Please tell me how any action of mine caused your orange savior to instigate that coup.


----------



## Batcat (Feb 10, 2022)

woodwork201 said:


> Then you know me.
> 
> I have a gun readily available at all times.  I don't always wear one on my hip but I'd like to be more consistent in doing even that.  Sometimes I go out without one but there is always at least one in the car.  The biggest gap I have is when I go into the store.  If I didn't have my EDC on when I went out the door, the plan is to get one out of the car.  Sometimes I don't grab it but that is fewer and fewer times these days.
> 
> So I'm not a perfect 24/7 carrier but I'm close.


 I live in Florida which makes concealing a full size or even just large hand gun difficult most of the year. (Open carry is not legal in Florida and I am not a fan of pen carry.)At first I carried a 1911 .45 auto but that was uncomfortable and a pain so it often was left in the safe or perhaps the car while I was shopping. I wasn’t fond of leaving a gun in the car as there always is the chance someone will break into the car. 

In 1993 S&W came out with their Model 642 Airweight capable of handling 38+P ammo. I bought one of the first. After 29 years it has several thousand rounds fired through it and it is holding up well. 

The Model 642 so light I can grab it on my way out the door and slide it and its pocket holster into my pants pocket. Consequently I don’t leave home without it (Unless I am headed somewhere where it is illegal to carry a concealed weapon.)

It may be a mouse gun but it is far better than no gun if someone attacks me with the intention of putting me in the hospital for an extended stay or six feet under. 









						Smith and Wesson 642 Review
					

Our Smith and Wesson 642 Review covers the most popular J Frame on the market. It's small size makes it a popular concealed carry option.




					harrysholsters.com


----------



## Abatis (Feb 10, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> _United States v. Cruikshank_, 92 U.S. 542 (1876)
> 
> These gun grabbers actually believe that this case helps them.



I know, but they never _actually,_ _*really*_ read the cases and never ever pay attention to the facts of the case or the history.  They only read partisan opinions about the case (from other anti-gunners) or they just play-act as gun law poseurs, (Google / Wikipedia scholars).

_Cruikshank_ stands for more than the plain statement that the right is not granted (or given / created / established) by the 2nd Amendment thus the right can not be argued to depend --_IN ANY MANNER_ -- on the Constitution for its existence.

As fatal as _that_ is to so many anti-gun arguments, the facts of the case seal the casket and bury it.

Consider that _Cruikshank_ recognizes the right of, "_bearing arms for a lawful purpose_" of Levi Nelson and Alexander Tillman, two former slaves then citizens of the United States living in 1873 Louisiana. 

Those two men were armed in public for self defense against roving White mobs who were intent on overthrowing an election where Black candidates won offices.

The White League / KKK set upon Nelson and Tillman and disarmed, kidnapped and lynched them and terrorized and murdered at least 80 other Black citizens that day. (see *Colfax Massacre*).

This occurred in a state and at a time that Louisiana had no "official" militia (it being disbanded by the governor on the orders of Congress) so SCOTUS can't possibly be recognizing any federal 2ndA right to arms that is conditioned upon militia association. 

This is further confirmed in law, these were two black men who, _even if Louisiana had a militia_, they could not enroll as federal militia law only allowed Whites to enroll.

_Cruikshank_ destroys all anti-gunner arguments.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 10, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> _Presser v. Illinois_, 116 U.S. 252 (1886)
> 
> Same as Cruikshank.



_Presser_ should be read to eliminate the need for incorporation. 

_Presser_ impresses a federal enforcement of the citizen's federal right to keep and bear arms without any reference to or reliance on, the 2nd Amendment.  

The Court is enforcing an unavoidable principle that is an outcome of the Constitution's promise to the states to forever provide a republican form of government.  The Court unequivocally states it is a foundational principle of the nation that the armed citizens are the reserve military force of both the nation and the states, and even laying the 2nd Amendment out of view, the states can not disarm their citizens because the nation might need those citizens and their guns to defend the nation.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 10, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> _United States v. Miller_, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
> 
> This one is even WORSE for the gun-grabbing commies.
> 
> By deduction, ANY WEAPON used by the military would be a part of "ordinary military equipment" and WOULD BE protected by the 2A, including the M60 and M249 machine guns.



Absolutely true but the "_Miller_ Rule" (protecting the civilian possession and use of arms of a type that constitute the ordinary military equipment and/or of a type that could be used effectively in the common defense) was tempered by Scalia in _Heller_ with _Heller_ elevating "in common use at the time" to a full share of the 2nd Amendment's protection criteria.  

So, while that moved the restrictions of the NFA off the menu of immediate challenges following _Heller_ , it was an easy lift so arms of a type and configuration without a focused military use would, with little fanfare, fall under 2nd Amendment protection -- like handguns.  

The de-fanging of the _Miller _Rule was no doubt one of the watering-down instances to gain Kennedy's signature on Scalia's opinion (making it the majority).  

Challenging the NFA will happen, all in good time . . .


----------



## Abatis (Feb 10, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> _Lewis v. United States,_ 445 U.S. 55 (1980)
> 
> Not familiar with this one.



_Lewis _gets little attention, it was a case with a felon as the plaintiff so there of course was no law overturned.  It is interesting because the Court goes to great lengths explaining what Lewis could have done to relieve the RKBA disability before he armed himself in violation of he law. 

The Court clearly does this in the context that *every citizen* possesses the 2ndA RKBA until he is convicted of a crime that impresses the rights disablement. 

Nowhere does the Court say that Lewis, after getting his conviction set aside and then receiving a full pardon, must _then_ go to the National Guard Recruiting Office and enlist to have his 2ndA rights restored.

.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 10, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> _District of Columbia v. Heller_, 554 U.S. 570 (2008)
> 
> Pretty much shoots them down again, as it applies to D.C.



Much is bandied about by anti-gunners that _Heller_ was a 5-4 decision and that was the score for the "individual right" vs. "collective right" theories . . . That is a *great fraud* (to borrow from Justice Burger), it is an outright lie.  

The 5-4 score was on the question of whether the DC statutes should stand or be invalidated on legal maneuvering, not constitutional grounds.  The dissents were based on the standard of scrutiny (Breyer) and the outright ignoring of SCOTUS, inspecting the text of the 2ndA to discern the "scope" of the right (Stevens) -- of course both of those endeavors concluded the DC statues should stand.

On this larger question, on whether the 2nd Amendment secures a "collective right" or "individual right", Heller was 9-0 for the individual right.  

The dissents all agreed that whatever the debate has been over that question, that debate is now dead.

The dissents all agreed that the interpretation that the 2nd Amendment protects an “individual” right has *always* been the interpretation represented in the Court's precedent, that it is the interpretation represented in all three opinions issued that day in June 2008 by the Court, and is, plainly said, the interpretation that the entire _Heller_ Court subscribes.



Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> _McDonald v. City of Chicago_, 561 U.S. 742 (2010)
> 
> Makes Heller apply to the states under the 14th Amendment.



_McDonald_ has been in suspended animation since being handed down because SCOTUS took a hiatus from the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## Abatis (Feb 10, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> _Caetano v. Massachusetts_, 577 U.S. ___ (2016)
> 
> 
> Not familiar with this one.



_Caetano_ was a case challenging a stun-gun ban in Massachusetts. It is very useful to cite to dispense with the typical anti-gunner idiocy that the 2ndA only protects muskets . . .

This was a per curiam decision which are short and unsigned and typically represent a decision on an issue that is not believed controversial (within the Court).

The Mass. state supreme court held that since stun-guns were not in common use at the time the 2ndA was enacted, they could be banned.

SCOTUS relied on _Heller _which contains a paragraph dispelling that idea (internal citations removed):


"Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications,  . . . , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, . . . , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding."​

The Court wrote in _*Caetano v. Massachusetts*:_

​"The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U. S. 570, 582 (2008), and that this “Second Amendment right is fully applicable to the States,” McDonald v. Chicago, 561 U. S. 742, 750 (2010). In this case, the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts upheld a Massachusetts law prohibiting the possession of stun guns after examining “whether a stun gun is the type of weapon contemplated by Congress in 1789 as being protected by the Second Amendment.” 470 Mass. 774, 777, 26 N. E. 3d 688, 691 (2015). . . .​​. . . the [Massachusetts] court explained that stun guns are not protected because they “were not in common use at the time of the Second Amendment’s enactment.” Id., at 781, 26 N. E. 3d, at 693. This is inconsistent with Heller’s clear statement that the Second Amendment “extends . . . to . . . arms . . . that were not in existence at the time of the founding.” 554 U. S., at 582. . . .​​. . . the explanation the Massachusetts court offered for upholding the law contradicts this Court’s precedent. Consequently, the . . . judgment of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts is vacated, and the case is remanded for further proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion."​

_Caetano_ is also useful because it dispenses with any argument that there is some numerical value that must be attained, for an arm to be deemed "in common use".


----------



## Rigby5 (Feb 18, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?



There are over a million serious violent crimes a year, none of which police have ever prevented, and thousands of which are caused BY police.
So obviously it is essential to have an armed population.
If we want to reduce crime, we should not only ensure the population is armed, but get rid of police.
Police historically always become the corrupt agents of the dictators, like the Gestapo, Stasi, Tonton Macaque, etc.


----------



## Rigby5 (Feb 18, 2022)

The KKK was an extension of the government of the wealthy elite.
The wealthy elite always control government, and they always abuse the poor majority.
The last thing any liberal or progressive should ever want is gun control.
The intent of gun control is always evil.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth (Feb 18, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?


Internet badass


----------



## westwall (Feb 18, 2022)

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> Internet badass






More like internet dumbass.

P1 Roll Call: Utah cop ambushed, Citizens rescue cops








						Video: P1 Roll Call: Utah cop ambushed, Citizens rescue cops
					

Watch P1 Roll Call: Utah cop ambushed, Citizens rescue cops and more Weekly Police News Updates videos on Police1




					www.police1.com
				




Armed civilian shoots and kills suspect, saving life of Arizona trooper 'ambushed' on highway​The suspect shot the trooper, then got on top of him and started bashing his head on the pavement. A passerby stepped in and fatally shot the suspect








						Armed civilian shoots and kills suspect, saving life of Arizona trooper 'ambushed' on highway
					

The suspect shot the trooper, then got on top of him and started bashing his head on the pavement. A passerby stepped in and fatally shot the suspect




					nationalpost.com
				













						Cops Rescued by Armed Citizens
					






					lawnews.tv


----------



## Rigby5 (May 15, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> What's going to allow gun control is that few of young men hunt or shoot these days. They're all playing video games.
> 
> 58% of NRA membership is over retirement age. Give it another 20-30 years and gun rights won't disappear with a bang, they'll disappear with a whimper.



I disagree.
Gun sales are booming.
Covid, the Ukraine war, economic instability, environmental changes, increased poverty, etc. have all greatly increased gun ownership.
Nothing to do with hunting or shooting for sport.
It has more to do with increased crime and police becoming more alienating.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 15, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?



With all the rapes, murders, thefts, crazy government, etc., how is rational to be unarmed and utterly defenseless?


----------



## Rigby5 (May 15, 2022)

Abatis said:


> _Lewis _gets little attention, it was a case with a felon as the plaintiff so there of course was no law overturned.  It is interesting because the Court goes to great lengths explaining what Lewis could have done to relieve the RKBA disability before he armed himself in violation of he law.
> 
> The Court clearly does this in the context that *every citizen* possesses the 2ndA RKBA until he is convicted of a crime that impresses the rights disablement.
> 
> ...



The restrictions on ex-felons seems illegal to me.
You can not have a 2 tiered society.
Either we all have equal rights or none.
How can ex-felons not be allowed to vote and yet still pay taxes, since that is taxation without representation?
If defense of right to life is inherent, then how can anyone force an ex-felon to remain unarmed?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> With all the rapes, murders, thefts, crazy government, etc., how is rational to be unarmed and utterly defenseless?


Your call if you want to live in a constant state of self induced paranoia. Only cowards live with that kind of fear.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 15, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Your call if you want to live in a constant state of self induced paranoia. Only cowards live with that kind of fear.



Are you saying you think murders, rapes, home invasions, burglaries, etc. do not happen, or that you do not care?
Do you mean you don't want to prevent murders, rapes, home invasions, burglaries, etc.?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 15, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Are you saying you think murders, rapes, home invasions, burglaries, etc. do not happen, or that you do not care?
> Do you mean you don't want to prevent murders, rapes, home invasions, burglaries, etc.?


I'm saying those things have always happened. No increase now over times past.  The main difference now is coward gun nuts who think they need to be armed 24/7.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 15, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> I'm saying those things have always happened. No increase now over times past.  The main difference now is coward gun nuts who think they need to be armed 24/7.



Irrelevant if those crimes are increasing or decreasing.
The reality is they are eventually going to happen to you or someone you are close to, and without a firearm, you are defenseless to be able to stop it.
Responsible people know better and realize defense it up to them personally, and there is no one else to rely on.

If you take the number of serious crimes each year and multiply times a lifetime, then divide by the population, you get that everyone will become the victim of a serious crime of violence, about 2.5 times in your life.
So if you prefer to be unable to do anything, that is your choice.
But it seems to me being armed is much more responsible.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 16, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Irrelevant if those crimes are increasing or decreasing.
> The reality is they are eventually going to happen to you or someone you are close to, and without a firearm, you are defenseless to be able to stop it.
> Responsible people know better and realize defense it up to them personally, and there is no one else to rely on.
> 
> ...


This country survived quite well without gun nuts until the last few years. You should be ashamed of what your gun nut cowardice is doing to our country.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Your call if you want to live in a constant state of self induced paranoia. Only cowards live with that kind of fear.





Who said anything about fear?  I have car insurance.   Not because I am afraid, but because there are stupid people out there.

The same goes for the gun I carry.  I ain't afraid.  But there are some real dumb people out there.


----------



## Batcat (May 16, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?


I carry a legally concealed handgun not to kill an attacker but to stop his attack. A .38 snub nosed revolver is an excellent defensive weapon but not necessarily all that lethal. 

I am 75 yeas old with a bad back and a candidate for hip replacement. 
My noticeable limp and age makes me a weak member of the herd that predators prefer to attack. I am not stupid enough to believe I can take on a young thug and win in a physical fight. My revolver is an equalizer that might prevent my landing in the hospital for a long period or six feet under. Hopefully I will never have to use it for legitimate self defense.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> This country survived quite well without gun nuts until the last few years. You should be ashamed of what your gun nut cowardice is doing to our country.





Yeah, you love to call people cowards, but you are the one too scared to use a gun to prevent someone from harming you.

How does it feel to live in perpetual fear of an inanimate object?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 16, 2022)

Batcat said:


> I carry a legally concealed handgun not to kill an attacker but to stop his attack. A .38 snub nosed revolver is an excellent defensive weapon but not necessarily all that lethal.
> 
> I am 75 yeas old with a bad back and a candidate for hip replacement.
> My noticeable limp and age makes me a weak member of the herd that predators prefer to attack. I am not stupid enough to believe I can take on a young thug and win in a physical fight. My revolver is an equalizer that might prevent my landing in the hospital for a long period or six feet under. Hopefully I will never have to use it for legitimate self defense.


How many times have you shot your gun at somene?


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> How many times have you shot your gun at somene?





Who cares.  How many times have you shot your mouth off at someone in person?


----------



## BULLDOG (May 16, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yeah, you love to call people cowards, but you are the one too scared to use a gun to prevent someone from harming you.
> 
> How does it feel to live in perpetual fear of an inanimate object?


What fear would that be? I have guns. There are times and places when they make sense, but vastly more times and places when they are inappropriate.  Gun nuts are too afraid to understand that.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> What fear would that be? I have guns. There are times and places when they make sense, but vastly more times and places when they are inappropriate.  Gun nuts are too afraid to understand that.





No, you don't.   You hate guns and those who use them.  You're too terrified of them.

That is very clear.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 16, 2022)

westwall said:


> Who cares.  How many times have you shot your mouth off at someone in person?


Comeon Wasteballs. You can do better than that.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2022)

You don't deserve better.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 16, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> This country survived quite well without gun nuts until the last few years. You should be ashamed of what your gun nut cowardice is doing to our country.



Wrong.
Without gun nuts, we would still be a crown possession, we would have lost all the wars, etc.
If we had more gun nuts, then we would never have wanted or needed police, who are actually our biggest threat.
They not only murder about 5000 people a year, but cause the US to have the largest % imprisoned in the world, on ridiculous laws like the War on Drugs, which is not even remotely legal.

Anyone without guns is irresponsible and the cause of the country turning into such an evil police state.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 16, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> How many times have you shot your gun at someone?



The point of having a gun is that its presence and appearance are all the deterrent you almost ever actually need.
Once you pull a gun, you almost never need to pull the trigger.
The criminal is going to look for someone who is not armed instead.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 16, 2022)

westwall said:


> No, you don't.   You hate guns and those who use them.  You're too terrified of them.
> 
> That is very clear.


Oh My. You're another one of those that think they know more about me than I do. When do you think I first started hating guns? Seems I'm learning things about myself that I never knew before. Please tell me more about myself that I never knew.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 16, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> What fear would that be? I have guns. There are times and places when they make sense, but vastly more times and places when they are inappropriate.  Gun nuts are too afraid to understand that.



Crime can happen just about anywhere.
About the only place where guns are inappropriate, is if they are serving alcohol.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 16, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Without gun nuts, we would still be a crown possession, we would have lost all the wars, etc.
> If we had more gun nuts, then we would never have wanted or needed police, who are actually our biggest threat.
> They not only murder about 5000 people a year, but cause the US to have the largest % imprisoned in the world, on ridiculous laws like the War on Drugs, which is not even remotely legal.
> ...


That's just goofy, but exactly the bullshit that a gun nut would spout.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 16, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The point of having a gun is that its presence and appearance are all the deterrent you almost ever actually need.
> Once you pull a gun, you almost never need to pull the trigger.
> The criminal is going to look for someone who is not armed instead.


One of the first rules of guns is NEVER pull it unless you are prepared to use it, dumb ass.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 16, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> That's just goofy, but exactly the bullshit that a gun nut would spout.



How to you propose to prevent abusive federal, state, or municipal government from becoming abusive, if you make them all powerful?


----------



## Rigby5 (May 16, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> One of the first rules of guns is NEVER pull it unless you are prepared to use it, dumb ass.



The point of being prepared to use the gun is so that the person you pulled it on does not take it from you.
It does NOT mean you have to shoot someone every time you pull out the gun.
You almost NEVER have to.
If it makes them leave, you have accomplished your goal.
Shooting when not absolutely forced to, is criminal.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 16, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> How to you propose to prevent abusive federal, state, or municipal government from becoming abusive,


Stop electing Republicans.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 16, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> How to you propose to prevent abusive federal, state, or municipal government from becoming abusive, if you make them all powerful?


Quit being so hystrionic. The government is not all powerful, and the nutbag that convinced you that it might be should be ashamed.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 16, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The point of being prepared to use the gun is so that the person you pulled it on does not take it from you.
> It does NOT mean you have to shoot someone every time you pull out the gun.
> You almost NEVER have to.
> If it makes them leave, you have accomplished your goal.
> Shooting when not absolutely forced to, is criminal.


You're nuts. Gun nuttery is a recent malady. It will eventually pass like bell bottom pants.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Quit being so hystrionic. The government is not all powerful, and the nutbag that convinced you that it might be should be ashamed.





Tell that to the people government puts in prison and murders for no reason other than politics.


DURRRRR


----------



## BULLDOG (May 16, 2022)

westwall said:


> Tell that to the people government puts in prison and murders for no reason other than politics.
> 
> 
> DURRRRR


Lots of problems with our criminal justice system, but your accusation of murdering political prisoners is, like most of your crap, batshit crazy.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Lots of problems with our criminal justice system, but your accusation of murdering political prisoners is, like most of your crap, batshit crazy.





Tell that to ashli, dumbass.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 16, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> Without gun nuts, we would still be a crown possession, we would have lost all the wars, etc.
> If we had more gun nuts, then we would never have wanted or needed police, who are actually our biggest threat.
> They not only murder about 5000 people a year, but cause the US to have the largest % imprisoned in the world, on ridiculous laws like the War on Drugs, which is not even remotely legal.
> ...


Incorrect and based on fantasy.

Wind the clock back to1776, that would have been the first war America would have lost because as America was losing, America needed the French to step in, so get your history right. The second thing is, 1776 wasn't over guns.

America's police shoot so many citizens because the 2nd Amendment has created a violent culture, so if it moves or farts, shoot 350 bullets then ask questions.

Those with guns who are willing to shoot their neighbour are the irresponsible ones and anyone who believes their government will go tyrannical etc.. needs locked up in a padded institution for their safety.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Incorrect and based on fantasy.
> 
> Wind the clock back to1776, that would have been the first war America would have lost because as America was losing, America needed the French to step in, so get your history right. The second thing is, 1776 wasn't over guns.
> 
> ...




You are still pissed you can't tax us to death, and use us up in your foreign wars!


DURRRRRR


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 16, 2022)

westwall said:


> You are still passed you can't tax us to death, and use us up in your foreign wars!
> 
> 
> DURRRRRR


Passed? Are you pissed!! lol

Hey, the Brits are covering the latest mass shooting -









						More shootings in the asylum in Rest of the World
					

Page 4 of 5: Quote from: Good old on December 24, 2021, 03:44:18 pm Another blatant piece of anti Labour, for the sake of that and that only.   Are you denying the




					pol-tics.com
				




It's under the heading, "More shootings in the asylum"


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Passed? Are you pissed!! lol
> 
> Hey, the Brits are covering the latest mass shooting -
> 
> ...





Good.  How about your mass shootings going on in jolly old England?

Seems you have had a raft of them.  And every anti gun law on the books too.

DURRRRRR


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 16, 2022)

westwall , In Jolly England? Heavens, we have less in decades than America has in a week or two.

I've been to Jolly America a number of times, have you been to Jolly England?


----------



## Rigby5 (May 16, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Stop electing Republicans.



Democrats are just as abusive, such as Hillary pushing her Arab Spring, invasion of Iraq, murder of Qaddafi, attacks on Assad, etc.
Bill Clinton is guilty of the Federal Crime Act, with the War on Drugs, 3 strikes, and many other illegal crimes.
Johnson has Vietnam.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 16, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Lots of problems with our criminal justice system, but your accusation of murdering political prisoners is, like most of your crap, batshit crazy.



Shooting a Black person who is unarmed, is murdering political prisoners
Are you going to claim the police don't do that any more?


----------



## Rigby5 (May 16, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Incorrect and based on fantasy.
> 
> Wind the clock back to1776, that would have been the first war America would have lost because as America was losing, America needed the French to step in, so get your history right. The second thing is, 1776 wasn't over guns.
> 
> ...



Wrong.
The American Revolution in 1776 was not over guns, but if not for the gun nuts, we would have lost.
The French helped, but only for naval blockade so Cornwallis could not escape by ship.

The police shooting so many people has nothing at all to do with the number of guns.
The police routinely shoot and kill unarmed people trying to escape.
It is entirely the fault of the police themselves.
The police entirely cause all the crime by their illegal War on Drugs, which not only entices people into crime, but ensures such large amounts of cash that gun violence is ensured, just like Prohibition caused a huge spike in the number of guns and murders.

Gun culture people make it safer for police because they do not need to get called nearly as often, and gun nuts never attack police.

Anyone who does not realize ALL governments always go tyrannical, is just incredibly ignorant of history.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> westwall , In Jolly England? Heavens, we have less in decades than America has in a week or two.
> 
> I've been to Jolly America a number of times, have you been to Jolly England?




Yeah, but you are catching up.  Bigly.   Other than gun crimes you guys are waaaay more violent than we are.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2022)

Otis Mayfield said:


> What's going to allow gun control is that few of young men hunt or shoot these days. They're all playing video games.
> 
> 58% of NRA membership is over retirement age. Give it another 20-30 years and gun rights won't disappear with a bang, they'll disappear with a whimper.



I think you need to get a lot more current on what's happening with gun rights and gun ownership in America.  That whole "Gun rights is all about hunters and the NRA" crap is so badly out-of-date, I'm just flabbergasted that someone is out-of-touch enough to still be prattling it.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 16, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> You're nuts. Gun nuttery is a recent malady. It will eventually pass like bell bottom pants.


We should certainly hope so.

The vast majority of gunowners are mature, responsible adults, unlike the childish conservatives posting their lies and demagoguery in this thread.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 16, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Democrats are just as abusive, such as Hillary pushing her Arab Spring, invasion of Iraq, murder of Qaddafi, attacks on Assad, etc.
> Bill Clinton is guilty of the Federal Crime Act, with the War on Drugs, 3 strikes, and many other illegal crimes.
> Johnson has Vietnam.


The neo-fascist authoritarian right presents the greatest threat to our rights and protected liberties – not the Federal government.

Or more precisely, it’s Republican elected officials who are fomenting government tyranny.


----------



## Cecilie1200 (May 16, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Passed? Are you pissed!! lol
> 
> Hey, the Brits are covering the latest mass shooting -
> 
> ...



Hey, you can sit and piss and moan that your country became irrelevant without bothering your betters with it.  Try that.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 16, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Shooting a Black person who is unarmed, is murdering political prisoners
> Are you going to claim the police don't do that any more?


Of course they do it, but it's not political.


----------



## westwall (May 16, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> The neo-fascist authoritarian right presents the greatest threat to our rights and protected liberties – not the Federal government.
> 
> Or more precisely, it’s Republican elected officials who are fomenting government tyranny.





Says the idiot fascist.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones (May 16, 2022)

westwall said:


> Says the idiot fascist.


Soon a conservative, Republican appointed Supreme Court will rule to increase the authority of the state at the expense of individual liberty.

And when that happens, Republican elected officials will enact measures to further violate the rights and protected liberties of the people.

The neo-fascist authoritarian right presents the greatest threat to our rights and protected liberties – not the Federal government.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 17, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> Wrong.
> The American Revolution in 1776 was not over guns, but if not for the gun nuts, we would have lost.
> The French helped, but only for naval blockade so Cornwallis could not escape by ship.
> 
> ...


As I've previously said, 1776 wasn't over guns, and irrelevant if you had gun nuts or not, the French saved your arses. And what's more, those pre 1776 are grateful you are personally taking credit  

American cops are gun crazy because the public are gun crazy, it's that simple. If people are trying to escape, then they're not a threat, why shoot them? Because American cops and citizens are gun crazy.

Gun culture people do not make it safer because they're willing to shoot their neighbour, you can't get more opposite than safe than that!!!!!!!!!!!!!

*You tell me, since 1776, which government in the US and UK have gone tyrannical?*


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> As I've previously said, 1776 wasn't over guns, and irrelevant if you had gun nuts or not, the French saved your arses. And what's more, those pre 1776 are grateful you are personally taking credit
> 
> American cops are gun crazy because the public are gun crazy, it's that simple. If people are trying to escape, then they're not a threat, why shoot them? Because American cops and citizens are gun crazy.
> 
> ...






Both have.  It has taken the USA longer to get to where the UK already is.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 17, 2022)

westwall said:


> Both have.  It has taken the USA longer to get to where the UK already is.


If you understand the subject, you would know that only North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Myanmar, and Belarus are Tyrannical governments.


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> If you understand the subject, you would know that only North Korea, Iran, Cuba, Myanmar, and Belarus are Tyrannical governments.





Wrong.  Those are simply the worst examples, but all governments are tyrannical to a degree. 

They have to be.

The problems arise when the leaders get too greedy for wealth and power.

As we are seeing worldwide.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 17, 2022)

westwall said:


> Wrong.  Those are simply the worst examples, but all governments are tyrannical to a degree.
> 
> They have to be.
> 
> ...


Greedy is not the criteria to what makes a government tyrannical.


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Greedy is not the criteria to what makes a government tyrannical.




Sure it is.  As politicians get ever more greedy for power and wealth, they turn the power of government against the citizens. 

Talk about not knowing the subject.

Sheesh, study up on the subject a bit.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 17, 2022)

westwall said:


> Wrong.  Those are simply the worst examples, but all governments are tyrannical to a degree.
> 
> They have to be.
> 
> ...



I generally agree.  We saw it in spades during the Trump administration.  A man whose entire existence is a paean to greed and avarice got into office and then proceeded to fleece the American people with his hotel deals and his fake attempts at "divesting" from his companies.  What a sham.

And the dems are not lilly white either.  Nancy P. has some questionable (albeit presumably "legal") activities in relation to stocks.

I see folks like Joe Manchin living on his houseboat and driving a fancy sports car while he represents one of the poorest states in the US.

It's repulsive to see how our government is made up of people just like us.  Greedy and grasping.


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I generally agree.  We saw it in spades during the Trump administration.  A man whose entire existence is a paean to greed and avarice got into office and then proceeded to fleece the American people with his hotel deals and his fake attempts at "divesting" from his companies.  What a sham.
> 
> And the dems are not lilly white either.  Nancy P. has some questionable (albeit presumably "legal") activities in relation to stocks.
> 
> ...





What a load of horse shit.  Trump did the exact opposite of what obummef, and xiden have done.

You are either a moron, or a Chinese stooge.


----------



## Sunsettommy (May 17, 2022)

Has anyone read the Federalist Papers?


----------



## westwall (May 17, 2022)

Sunsettommy said:


> Has anyone read the Federalist Papers?




Yup.  Many times.


----------



## Frankeneinstein (May 18, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "The aspirational Second Amendment is overtaking the judicial Second Amendment in American law," he wrote in the Indiana Law Journal in 2018, a sentiment he repeated in a recent interview with ABC News. "State law is embracing such a robust, anti-regulatory view of the right to keep and bear arms that the judicial Second Amendment, at least as currently construed, seems likely to have less and less to say about the shape of America's gun laws."’


TRANSLATION: Game one goes to the constitution, time to switch gears and try an end run around it.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 18, 2022)

westwall said:


> What a load of horse shit.  Trump did the exact opposite of what obummef, and xiden have done.
> 
> You are either a moron, or a Chinese stooge.



Well, at least I'm not a pro-Putin stooge.


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Well, at least I'm not a pro-Putin stooge.





Could have fooled us.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 18, 2022)

westwall said:


> Could have fooled us.



Your conspiracy theories are all over the map.  Pretty confused thinking.


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Your conspiracy theories are all over the map.  Pretty confused thinking.





What theories are those?  You are the one pushing weird theories.

Not us.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 18, 2022)

westwall said:


> Sure it is.  As politicians get ever more greedy for power and wealth, they turn the power of government against the citizens.
> 
> Talk about not knowing the subject.
> 
> Sheesh, study up on the subject a bit.


A tyrannical government is where people are oppressed, their free is taken away, and they can't express themselves. If a government official, or officials,is/are in the background stealing government funds, that is not a tyrannical government. There is no Sheesh about it.

So my list of current tyrannical governments stands and the US and UK are nowhere near tyrannical, even if government fraud may be happening behind our backs.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 18, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> A tyrannical government is where people are oppressed, their free is taken away, and they can't express themselves. If a government official, or officials,is/are in the background stealing government funds, that is not a tyrannical government. There is no Sheesh about it.
> 
> So my list of current tyrannical governments stands and the US and UK are nowhere near tyrannical, even if government fraud may be happening behind our backs.



There is definitely a difference between tyrannical and corrupt.  But with corruption comes the promise of more gains through more direct control.  It will always be a temptation for the corrupt to become tyrants.  They will attempt to overturn free and fair elections, they will mobilize their base to attack the government as a useful tool to maintain their direct control.  

But more subtly they will work to destroy the free and fair election process through selective disenfranchisement of voters who cannot be counted on voting for them and they will gerrymander the districts to shore up their control.

I don't think America is too far gone, but we are getting closer.  Now that many on one side have demonized education to the point that basic facts no longer hold sway for them, it is a relatively easy feat to get them to vote against their own self interest consistently until the reins are fully in someone's hands at which point the tyranny can begin.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 18, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> There is definitely a difference between tyrannical and corrupt.  But with corruption comes the promise of more gains through more direct control.  It will always be a temptation for the corrupt to become tyrants.  They will attempt to overturn free and fair elections, they will mobilize their base to attack the government as a useful tool to maintain their direct control.
> 
> But more subtly they will work to destroy the free and fair election process through selective disenfranchisement of voters who cannot be counted on voting for them and they will gerrymander the districts to shore up their control.
> 
> I don't think America is too far gone, but we are getting closer.  Now that many on one side have demonized education to the point that basic facts no longer hold sway for them, it is a relatively easy feat to get them to vote against their own self interest consistently until the reins are fully in someone's hands at which point the tyranny can begin.


Doesn't matter which country it is, 100% of people get into politics for the money. Whether they steal the money directly, or use their position to gain money from companies, or to create legislation so their own businesses make more money; the more corrupt and back stabbing you can be, the higher up the ladder you will get.

And if anyone thinks a politician is in their job because they want to help people, they're mighty delusional.


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2022)

O





Captain Caveman said:


> A tyrannical government is where people are oppressed, their free is taken away, and they can't express themselves. If a government official, or officials,is/are in the background stealing government funds, that is not a tyrannical government. There is no Sheesh about it.
> 
> So my list of current tyrannical governments stands and the US and UK are nowhere near tyrannical, even if government fraud may be happening behind our backs.





Oh?  Seems to me there are loads of songs and videos banned in the UK for political reasons.  Invisible Sun by The Police being one of them.


----------



## 2aguy (May 18, 2022)

westwall said:


> O
> 
> 
> 
> Oh?  Seems to me there are loads of songs and videos banned in the UK for political reasons.  Invisible Sun by The Police being one of them.




Don't forget the guy arrested for singing "Kung Fu Fighting."

*A pub singer has been arrested on suspicion of racism for singing the classic chart hit Kung Fu Fighting.*
*
The song, performed by Simon Ledger, 34, is said to have offended two Chinese people as they walked past the bar where he was singing.
*
*The entertainer regularly performs the 1974 number one hit, originally by disco star Carl Douglas, at the Driftwood Beach Bar in Sandown, on the Isle of Wight.*









						Pub singer arrested for racism after Chinese passers-by hear him perform Kung Fu Fighting
					

Simon Ledger, 34, apparently offended two Chinese people as they walked past the bar on the Isle of Wight where he was singing.




					www.dailymail.co.uk


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 18, 2022)

westwall said:


> Oh?  Seems to me there are loads of songs and videos banned in the UK for political reasons.  Invisible Sun by The Police being one of them.


Do you mean this song that I quickly looked up on YouTube and played?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative (May 18, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Do you mean this song that I quickly looked up on YouTube and played?



Yeah it was in pretty good rotation back in the 80's on MTV in the US.  I don't know about how it was treated in the UK though.


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2022)

Captain Caveman said:


> Do you mean this song that I quickly looked up on YouTube and played?





Yeah, but the beeb won't play it.  Ever.


----------



## westwall (May 18, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Yeah it was in pretty good rotation back in the 80's on MTV in the US.  I don't know about how it was treated in the UK though.





It was banned.  The beeb didn't like the way the "Troubles" was portrayed.  I think the little kid throwing the rock at the Saracen APC was too much for them.


----------



## 2aguy (May 18, 2022)

westwall said:


> It was banned.  The beeb didn't like the way the "Troubles" was portrayed.  I think the little kid throwing the rock at the Saracen APC was too much for them.



Isnt calling the APC “ a  Saracen cultural appropriation?  How dare they….


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 18, 2022)

westwall said:


> Yeah, but the beeb won't play it.  Ever.


Yes, they wouldn't play, "Relax, don't do it if you want to cum" by Frankie and the Hollywood on Top of the Tops decades ago. You could still buy it on record etc.. But that's the BBC, not the government. The BBC licence fee wants scrapped, that'll happen in a few years to come, they're out of date.


----------



## Captain Caveman (May 18, 2022)

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Yeah it was in pretty good rotation back in the 80's on MTV in the US.  I don't know about how it was treated in the UK though.


The BBC is a licence fee payment system. They tend to push their ideas through against the licence fee population. They often ban songs on the TV, but you can still buy them and listen to them on the radio that's not controlled by the BBC. 

The BBC protected Jimmy Saville over child molesting etc.. So theirs number up, and it'll be a matter of a few years before they need funded in a different way as opposed to the TV licence. The youth of today don't bother with TV, it's all Amazon and Netflix on phones, so licence fee numbers are actually falling.


----------



## woodwork201 (May 19, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> The restrictions on ex-felons seems illegal to me.
> You can not have a 2 tiered society.
> Either we all have equal rights or none.
> How can ex-felons not be allowed to vote and yet still pay taxes, since that is taxation without representation?
> If defense of right to life is inherent, then how can anyone force an ex-felon to remain unarmed?


There's no such thing as an ex-felon but, even so, the restriction is unconstitutional.  There's no exception clause in the 2nd Amendment and those who accept bans on felons owning guns must, likewise, accept a ban on anyone the government chooses to ban.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 24, 2022)

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘Joseph Blocher, professor of law and co-director of the Center for Firearms Law at Duke Law School, described the patchwork of state laws that exists across the country as a "buffer zone" for the Second Amendment.
> 
> "Before you even get to the Constitution, there's a huge array of other laws super protecting the right to keep and bear arms," Blocher said. "This collection of laws is giving individuals lots of protection for gun-related activity that the Second Amendment would not necessarily require, and certainly, and in almost all of these instances, that no lower court has said the Second Amendment would require."
> 
> ...


Justice Barrett is about to annihilate the left's precious "judicial Second Amendment”.

In another month, Second Amendment case law will require following the US Constitution.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> "The Bill of Rights, _by its terms_, only applies to the federal government, but the Supreme Court, through a doctrine known as incorporation, has made almost all of its guarantees applicable against state and local governments as well. That's what the question was in McDonald," Blocher said. "But some states have chosen to go above and beyond what the court laid out." _ibid_
> 
> Another point of conflict between the two camps.
> 
> ...


The political camp does no such thing.  We are happy to force state and local governments to follow the Constitution.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> but is inconsistent with its advocacy of “states’ rights” – advocating that the Supreme Court invalidate state measures such as assault weapon bans and universal background checks.


States do not have a right to violate the Constitution.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> ‘It goes back to that widening gap between the judicial Second Amendment as the courts interpret it and the aspirational Second Amendment as used in politics, according to Winkler and Blocher.
> 
> "There's a difference between the Second Amendment as interpreted and applied by courts and the Second Amendment as it's invoked in political discussions. And for many gun rights advocates, the political version of the Second Amendment is quite a bit more gun protective than the Second Amendment as the Supreme Court and lower courts have applied it," he said.’ _ibid_
> 
> And it’s pointless to tell purveyors of the political/aspirational Second Amendment that although they are entitled to their opinions, those opinions are subjective, irrelevant and devoid of legal, Constitutional merit.


Pointless to tell us that, because it isn't true.  What you refer to as the "political/aspirational Second Amendment" is the only correct way of interpreting the Constitution.

That makes the "political/aspirational Second Amendment" objective, relevant, and chock full of legal Constitutional merit.




C_Clayton_Jones said:


> Only the judicial Second Amendment carries the force of Constitutional law, authorizing government to regulate firearms consistent with Second Amendment jurisprudence.


Only for one more month.  Justice Barrett is about to make the "political/aspirational second amendment" the absolute law of the land once and for all.

And rightly so.  As I said, it is the only correct way of interpreting the Constitution.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> No. those things are a reasonable precaution,


So is carrying a gun.




BULLDOG said:


> Being armed as if you were in a war zone  to go to the convince store for a soda and some double A batteries for the remote is not reasonable.


Only leftist Freedom Haters consider carrying a gun to be appropriate only in war zones.




BULLDOG said:


> It's the action of a coward gun nut with mental problems.


It is noteworthy that the 9/11 hijackers hated our freedom just as much as progressives do.  That's probably why progressives were so happy about the 9/11 attacks.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 24, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> So is carrying a gun.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Thank you. If anyone was thinking you might be less than batshit crazy, that last remark, alone proved that is not the ase.


----------



## justoffal (May 24, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?


Ok....you can be dead and brave.


----------



## BULLDOG (May 24, 2022)

justoffal said:


> Ok....you can be dead and brave.


And you can be armed and stupid.


----------



## justoffal (May 25, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> Yep. Gun nuts are cowards. Only a coward is afraid to face everyday life without carrying a weapon designed to kill. What are you so afraid of. Was someone mean to you when you were little?


Ok....you can be dead and brave


BULLDOG said:


> And you can be armed and stupid.


But alive


----------



## Rigby5 (May 26, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> Justice Barrett is about to annihilate the left's precious "judicial Second Amendment”.
> 
> In another month, Second Amendment case law will require following the US Constitution.
> 
> ...



But it sounds like you are claiming the 2nd amendment bans all firearm laws, and that can not be true.
The original 2nd amendment was intended just to ban any federal gun laws.
The 14th amendment then is where individual firearm rights are mentioned in the constitution, but it is not very specific.
For example, can there be municipal laws preventing the sale of firearms to minors?
And of course there can be.
So your argument is way too broad.
Neither the 2nd nor 14th amendments prevent all local firearm laws.


----------



## Open Bolt (May 26, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> But it sounds like you are claiming the 2nd amendment bans all firearm laws, and that can not be true.


I am not saying that.  There are a lot of gun laws that are blocked by the Second Amendment, but some gun laws can pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.





						Strict scrutiny - Wikipedia
					






					en.wikipedia.org
				







Rigby5 said:


> The original 2nd amendment was intended just to ban any federal gun laws.


Perhaps, but the Fourteenth Amendment changed that.




Rigby5 said:


> The 14th amendment then is where individual firearm rights are mentioned in the constitution, but it is not very specific.


The Second Amendment mentions individual firearms rights.




Rigby5 said:


> For example, can there be municipal laws preventing the sale of firearms to minors?
> And of course there can be.


Those laws will probably pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 26, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I am not saying that.  There are a lot of gun laws that are blocked by the Second Amendment, but some gun laws can pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



We do not seem to be really disagreeing.
But I would not necessarily go with "strict security" having a "compelling state interest".
The source of legal authority for states and municipalities to pass some reasonable firearm legislation comes from the defense of individuals from the abusive use of firearms by others.
I am saying that the point of state and local regulations is supposed to be to defend individual rights from infringement by others.
And I am saying that firearm needs vary based on the state.
For example, in Alaska the gun rack in the back of the pickup seems pretty reasonable, given things like bears.
But I would find that too tempting for thieves and unnecessary in a place like NYC.


----------



## Rigby5 (May 26, 2022)

BULLDOG said:


> And you can be armed and stupid.



Its true that just being armed does not increase IQ, but trying to rely on just police and the military for armed security, is truly stupid, because they are the most corrupt and dangerous.


----------



## justoffal (May 27, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> But it sounds like you are claiming the 2nd amendment bans all firearm laws, and that can not be true.
> The original 2nd amendment was intended just to ban any federal gun laws.
> The 14th amendment then is where individual firearm rights are mentioned in the constitution, but it is not very specific.
> For example, can there be municipal laws preventing the sale of firearms to minors?
> ...


I would further argue that there is no militia activity without the individual right. Since all militia activity  begins on an individual to individual basis and moves forward to organize from there it stands to reason that the right to bear arms also is an individual right. If that was not the case one could also argue that it was unconstitutional to form a militia and that simply is not true. There is no specification in the law that says the right only attaches after the militia has been organized. There is such a thing as a militia of one. Granted that's not ideal but there it is nonetheless.


----------



## woodwork201 (May 29, 2022)

Open Bolt said:


> I am not saying that.  There are a lot of gun laws that are blocked by the Second Amendment, but some gun laws can pass muster with Strict Scrutiny.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Can you send a link to where you bought your copy of the Constitution?  I don't have the version with the Strict Scrutiny exception; I need to get an updated version.


----------



## woodwork201 (May 29, 2022)

Rigby5 said:


> But it sounds like you are claiming the 2nd amendment bans all firearm laws, and that can not be true.
> The original 2nd amendment was intended just to ban any federal gun laws.
> The 14th amendment then is where individual firearm rights are mentioned in the constitution, but it is not very specific.
> For example, can there be municipal laws preventing the sale of firearms to minors?
> ...


But it sounds like you're claiming that certain gun restrictions are allowed, and that IS NOT true.  A firearm law that requires the chamber hold up to the pressures of the round is ok.  Any law restricting the ability to purchase a firearm is unconstitutional.


----------

