# Supreme Court Strikes Down Blatently Unconstitional Gun Regulation



## bigrebnc1775

Another one bites the dust.


----------



## 2aguy

Can't wait to read it.....who wrote the opinion...please say Thomas....


----------



## martybegan

2aguy said:


> Can't wait to read it.....who wrote the opinion...please say Thomas....



Yep, Thomas, supposedly 135 pages.


----------



## martybegan

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Another one bites the dust.



That means "shall issue" is now the law of the land.

Look for NYC to assign one Police officer to issue permits for the entire city, and a 2 year backlog.


----------



## 2aguy

Yep....Thomas....great..........


----------



## 2aguy

martybegan said:


> Yep, Thomas, supposedly 135 pages.




Thanks........my Dailywire Leftist Tears Tumbler is just over flowing.........need to put it in the pool so it doesn't flood the house.........


----------



## 2aguy

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Another one bites the dust.




And here it is......Thomas addressing the lower courts just ignoring Heller and the rest of the Supreme Court rulings...

*(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have devel- oped a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment chal- lenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court re- jects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Sec- ond Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDon- ald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context.

Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.*


----------



## 2aguy

And this...

*Because “individual self-defense is ‘the central component’ of the Second Amendment right,” these two metrics are “‘central’” considerations when engaging in an analogical inquiry. McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767 (quoting Heller, 554 U. S., at 599).*


----------



## 2aguy

Thomas is dealing with the leftist attempt to just declare entire cities "Sensitive Places," so they can keep gun bans in place...

*That said, respondents’ attempt to characterize New York’s proper-cause require- ment as a “sensitive-place” law lacks merit because there is no histor- ical basis for New York to effectively declare the island of Manhattan a “sensitive place” simply because it is crowded and protected gener- ally by the New York City Police Department. Pp. 17–22.*


----------



## basquebromance

SCOTUS = More guns & less woman's rights


----------



## basquebromance

The Supreme Court must be dismantled, rebuilt, and expanded to save the Constitution.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

basquebromance said:


> SCOTUS = More guns & less woman's rights


Are you saying women don't have a right to self defense?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

basquebromance said:


> The Supreme Court must be dismantled, rebuilt, and expanded to save the Constitution.


The ruling used the guidelines of the Constitution you idiot.


----------



## basquebromance

New York Governor Kathy Hochul said the Supreme Court has "stripped away the rights" of New York with a decision "frightful in its scope," setting us back "to the days of our founding fathers."


----------



## basquebromance

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Are you saying women don't have a right to self defense?


women are strong enough, they don't need "self-defense", wise guy


----------



## bigrebnc1775

2aguy said:


> Can't wait to read it.....who wrote the opinion...please say Thomas....


It's in the link.


----------



## Failzero

martybegan said:


> That means "shall issue" is now the law of the land.
> 
> Look for NYC to assign one Police officer to issue permits for the entire city, and a 2 year backlog.


Los Angeles County is Issuing thousands of CCW permits ( With tens of thousands of Initial Interviews done or pending )


----------



## bigrebnc1775

basquebromance said:


> New York Governor Kathy Hochul said the Supreme Court has "stripped away the rights" of New York with a decision "frightful in its scope," setting us back "to the days of our founding fathers."


No gun laws


----------



## basquebromance

Guns don't kill people.

Supreme Courts beholden to the NRA kill people.


----------



## bigrebnc1775




----------



## TheGreatSatan

basquebromance said:


> SCOTUS = More guns & less woman's rights


Women don't like guns?

Groomercrats that say stuff like this are sex obsessed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

basquebromance said:


> Guns don't kill people.
> 
> Supreme Courts beholden to the NRA kill people.


The ruling was beholden to the Constitution. Maybe if you actually understood it you wouldn't be chapped ass


----------



## skews13

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Are you saying women don't have a right to self defense?



Yep, and now more of them have the right to have guns openly a lot closer to Supreme  court justices. Hmm…


----------



## basquebromance

5 of the 6 conservative Supreme Court justices were appointed by a Republican Senate majority that won fewer votes than the Democrats

3 of the 6 were nominated by a president who also won a minority of the popular vote 

Remember that the real problem here is institutional


----------



## TheGreatSatan

skews13 said:


> Yep, and now more of them have the right to have guns openly a lot closer to Supreme  court justices. Hmm…


Groomercrats are becoming violent terrorists.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

basquebromance said:


> women are strong enough, they don't need "self-defense", wise guy


Women don't need self-defense? WOW


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## bigrebnc1775

basquebromance said:


> 5 of the 6 conservative Supreme Court justices were appointed by a Republican Senate majority that won fewer votes than the Democrats
> 
> 3 of the 6 were nominated by a president who also won a minority of the popular vote
> 
> Remember that the real problem here is institutional


Constitution constitution constitution


----------



## bigrebnc1775

basquebromance said:


>


He's just as ignorant about the constitution as you are


----------



## skews13

TheGreatSatan said:


> Groomercrats are becoming violent terrorists.


Be careful what you wish for dipshit


----------



## bigrebnc1775

skews13 said:


> Yep, and now more of them have the right to have guns openly a lot closer to Supreme  court justices. Hmm…


That's their choice.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

skews13 said:


> Be careful what you wish for dipshit


Bring it bitch I want it.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## basquebromance

Thanks to this Supreme Court, you can carry a concealed gun in public without a permit but if you get an abortion you can be arrested and jailed without Miranda rights


----------



## bigrebnc1775

basquebromance  is showing how much of a democrat they are.


----------



## Failzero

basquebromance said:


> Thanks to this Supreme Court, you can carry a concealed gun in public without a permit but if you get an abortion you can be arrested and jailed without Miranda rights


Um no an actual Permit is needed ( unless it’s a Constitutional Carry State )


----------



## TheGreatSatan

basquebromance said:


>


Groomers are going off the deep end.


----------



## skews13

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Bring it bitch I want it.


^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

Doesnt take the crazies long to expose themselves.


----------



## skews13

basquebromance said:


> Thanks to this Supreme Court, you can carry a concealed gun in public without a permit but if you get an abortion you can be arrested and jailed without Miranda rights



Wait until every violent thug, and a fast growing Latino population are all carrying around these conservative white peoples neighborhoods, schools, and churches. 

Oh, did I forget to mention the rather large, and growing Muslim population also? No?


----------



## TemplarKormac

basquebromance said:


> Guns don't kill people.
> 
> Supreme Courts beholden to the NRA kill people.


Given that you post opinions from both sides, I sincerely doubt you mean that.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

skews13 said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Doesnt take the crazies long to expose themselves.


 Your threats will be met


----------



## TheGreatSatan

skews13 said:


> Wait until every violent thug, and a fast growing Latino population are all carrying around these conservative white peoples neighborhoods, schools, and churches.
> 
> Oh, did I forget to mention the rather large, and growing Muslim population also? No?


Groomercrats are extremely racist.  You can tell by post like this.


----------



## JusticeHammer

Golfing Gator said:


> Here....read the ruling for yourself and find out the OP lied to you.
> 
> chrome-extension://efaidnbmnnnibpcajpcglclefindmkaj/https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/21pdf/20-1114_09m1.pdf
> 
> Of continue to live in abject ignorance.
> 
> Your choice


If a dem talks he is lying.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

basquebromance said:


> Guns don't kill people.
> 
> Supreme Courts beholden to the NRA kill people.



Leftism kills more people than any inanimate object you can name.


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

TheGreatSatan said:


> Groomers are going off the deep end.




Waaaaaaaaahhhhhh! We didn’t get our way! We always get our way!!!!!


----------



## TemplarKormac

I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this is how the dichotomy works regarding the SCOTUS:

_Dissolve_ it if it rules _against_ you.

_Protect_ its integrity if it rules _for_ you.

Honestly, it shouldn't have to give a damn what either side thinks of it or the rulings it makes.


----------



## Golfing Gator

JusticeHammer said:


> If a dem talks he is lying.



so you also are too ignorant to open the link and read the actual ruling.

Thanks for playing


----------



## bigrebnc1775

skews13 said:


> Wait until every violent thug, and a fast growing Latino population are all carrying around these conservative white peoples neighborhoods, schools, and churches.
> 
> Oh, did I forget to mention the rather large, and growing Muslim population also? No?


Thugs are already arming themselves  
And irony time 


skews13 said:


> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> 
> Doesnt take the crazies long to expose themselves.


----------



## marvin martian

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Are you saying women don't have a right to self defense?



That's what the left wants. Thankfully, we have justices like Clarence Thomas to defend our civil rights from the fascists.


----------



## TemplarKormac

basquebromance said:


>


Too bad dissents count for exactly zero when laws are struck down and rights are upheld.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

TemplarKormac said:


> I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say this is how the dichotomy works regarding the SCOTUS:
> 
> _Dissolve_ it if it rules _against_ you.
> 
> _Protect_ its integrity if it rules _for_ you.
> 
> Honestly, it shouldn't have to give a damn what either side thinks of it or the rulings it makes.


If the ruling is constitutional I can live with the ruling.


----------



## Ralph Norton

basquebromance said:


> The Supreme Court must be dismantled, rebuilt, and expanded to save the Constitution.


Let us know how that works out for you.


----------



## basquebromance

This is far worse than our most f*cked up nightmare scenarios

We are royally screwed

Unless the Supreme Court is expanded, the U.S. as we knew it is over

This was Putin's master plan, he tapped into Republican's religious & guns fetishes & he has single handedly destroyed us


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## Ralph Norton

basquebromance said:


> women are strong enough, they don't need "self-defense", wise guy


So then every reported "rape" must actually be consensual sex. 
Good thinking, wise guy.


----------



## TheGreatSatan

basquebromance said:


> This is far worse than our most f*cked up nightmare scenarios
> 
> We are royally screwed
> 
> Unless the Supreme Court is expanded, the U.S. as we knew it is over
> 
> This was Putin's master plan, he tapped into Republican's religious & guns fetishes & he has single handedly destroyed us


Groomercrats are blaming putin for the ruling. 

You really can't get any dumber.


----------



## TemplarKormac

basquebromance said:


> This is far worse than our most f*cked up nightmare scenarios
> 
> We are royally screwed
> 
> Unless the Supreme Court is expanded, the U.S. as we knew it is over
> 
> This was Putin's master plan, he tapped into Republican's religious & guns fetishes & he has single handedly destroyed us


Empty words. I've seen enough of your posting patterns here to know you just repeating the talking points of either side to gin up emotions in any particular thread or OP.

So, do you have any actual opinions of your own? Tell us what you truly believe.


----------



## Ralph Norton

basquebromance said:


> This is far worse than our most f*cked up nightmare scenarios
> 
> We are royally screwed
> 
> Unless the Supreme Court is expanded, the U.S. as we knew it is over
> 
> This was Putin's master plan, he tapped into Republican's religious & guns fetishes & he has single handedly destroyed us


Your Avatar must be a picture of you right after being asked "what is 2 + 2?".


----------



## marvin martian

basquebromance said:


> This is far worse than our most f*cked up nightmare scenarios
> 
> We are royally screwed
> 
> Unless the Supreme Court is expanded, the U.S. as we knew it is over
> 
> This was Putin's master plan, he tapped into Republican's religious & guns fetishes & he has single handedly destroyed us



LOL. ^^^This is Joe Biden's secret USMB account.


----------



## progressive hunter

basquebromance said:


> The Supreme Court must be dismantled, rebuilt, and expanded to save the Constitution.


figures pussys like you would complain on things you dont like but then agree with the ones you do like,,


----------



## progressive hunter

basquebromance said:


> women are strong enough, they don't need "self-defense", wise guy


then they dont need a special carve out for rape when it comes to abortions,,


----------



## TemplarKormac

progressive hunter said:


> figures pussys like you would complain on things you dont like but then agree with the ones you do like,,


His opinions insofar as I can tell, and as they are, are fake and hollow. He has no real opinions of his own.


----------



## TemplarKormac




----------



## Rye Catcher

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Another one bites the dust.


Statement:  Another one bites the dust.
Response:  Only one?  Just one child murdered, just one!


----------



## TemplarKormac

basquebromance said:


> women are strong enough, they don't need "self-defense", wise guy


That's bullshit and you know it.

Solely being a woman does not make her impervious to harm. It does not imbue her with superpowers.


----------



## Flash

basquebromance said:


> SCOTUS = More guns & less woman's rights


You are confused Moon Bat.

More Liberty and less killing of children.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rye Catcher said:


> Statement:  Another one bites the dust.
> Response:  Only one?  Just one child murdered, just one!


Cry more. If cars could run on liberal tears, the price of gas now would be irrelevant.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rye Catcher said:


> Define "Leftism".


Leftism:

The idea that the constitution says what it doesn't say and doesn't say what it actually says.


----------



## Flash

TheGreatSatan said:


> Groomercrats are extremely racist.  You can tell by post like this.




Absolutely!

Our man Thomas even addressed the racism of gun control laws in the opinion.


----------



## Flash

marvin martian said:


> That's what the left wants. Thankfully, we have justices like Clarence Thomas to defend our civil rights from the fascists.


----------



## Flash

Text, history and tradition instead of a scrutiny standard literally welds the casket shut on gun control.  

Clarence Thomas cut the balls off of every single lower left wing court with one single swing of the sword.

This could not possibly be a more bigly win.


----------



## Flash




----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rye Catcher said:


> Statement:  Another one bites the dust.
> Response:  Only one?  Just one child murdered, just one!


Troll stop projecting your hate


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

basquebromance said:


> This is far worse than our most f*cked up nightmare scenarios
> 
> We are royally screwed
> 
> Unless the Supreme Court is expanded, the U.S. as we knew it is over
> 
> This was Putin's master plan, he tapped into Republican's religious & guns fetishes & he has single handedly destroyed us



So you believe Putin wants to arm as many US citizens as he can

                           OR

The Russians, since Gorbachav are  weakening America through our education system, social system court system creating hate and division and weak( leftists) citizens.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

LAUGHatLEFTISTS said:


> So you believe Putin wants to arm as many US citizens as he can
> 
> OR
> 
> The Russians, since Gorbachav are  weakening America through our education system, social system court system creating hate and division and weak( leftists) citizens.


Putin wants a disarmed American population


----------



## Rogue AI

skews13 said:


> Wait until every violent thug, and a fast growing Latino population are all carrying around these conservative white peoples neighborhoods, schools, and churches.
> 
> Oh, did I forget to mention the rather large, and growing Muslim population also? No?


Armed folks don't wet themselves because other folks are armed. Your petty racist fearmongering is pretty sad. Did you get that from a Democrat publication, like a Beginner's Guide to the Democrat Klan?


----------



## TemplarKormac

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Troll stop projecting your hate


He's not projecting anything. Insomuch as he isn't projecting at all. He's just repeating things both sides say about politics. In this case, he wants to repeat everything the left says about gun control or Supreme Court opinions regarding gun rights.


----------



## Flash

A great thing in the case is that it shoots a hole in the Libtard claims that the 2nd only protects  muskets and not modern day weapons.

That is a huge win because any of these silly ass AWBs and magazine bans can be overturned,


_Its reference to “arms” does not apply “only [to] those arms in existence in the 18th century.” 554 U. S., at 582. “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.” Ibid. (citations omitted).

Thus, even though the Second Amendment’s definition of “arms” is fixed according to its historical understanding, that general definition covers modern instruments that facilitate armed self-defense. Cf. Caetano v. Massachusetts,_


----------



## bigrebnc1775

EvilCat Breath said:


> Roberts voted with the majority.


He had too since he voted with the majority in Heller


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

Rye Catcher said:


> Define "Leftism".


Weakness. Weak mindedness.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

TemplarKormac said:


> He's not projecting anything. Insomuch as he isn't projecting at all. He's just repeating things both sides say about politics. In this case, he wants to repeat everything the left says about gun control or Supreme Court opinions regarding gun rights.


He might be repeating what the left says but it's a projection of the left. Therefore he's projecting.


----------



## Failzero

Rye Catcher said:


> Define "Leftism".


Mao Hitler ( Nationalist Socialist ) Stalin Pol Pot Maduro Castro ...


----------



## miketx

basquebromance said:


> Guns don't kill people.
> 
> Supreme Courts beholden to the NRA kill people.


----------



## Flash

TemplarKormac said:


> Leftism:
> 
> The idea that the constitution says what it doesn't say and doesn't say what it actually says.


These Moon Bats are just as confused about the Constitution as they are confused about Economics, History, Biology, Climate Science and Ethics.


----------



## miketx

basquebromance said:


>


Homos quoting commies.


----------



## BlackSand

basquebromance said:


> Unless the Supreme Court is expanded, the U.S. as we knew it is over


.

If the only way Authoritarian Fascists can imagine continuing their constant assault on our Liberties is to expand the Supreme Court ...
Maybe they need to understand that the sun is setting on their Unconstitutional Empire.

.​


----------



## TemplarKormac

bigrebnc1775 said:


> He might be repeating what the left says but it's a projection of the left. Therefore he's projecting.


Fair enough.

He projects everything, then.


----------



## Failzero

miketx said:


> Homos quoting commies.


You just know KO has given a few reach arounds


----------



## Failzero

Mayor Adams is freakin “ These White mutha fuckas bein able to carry
Legally in The City is gonna keep me up at night “


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rye Catcher said:


> Define "Leftism".


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Failzero said:


> Mayor Adams is freakin “ These White mutha fuckas bein able to carry
> Legally in The City is gonna keep me up at night “


Maybe she is a gangbanger


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## TemplarKormac

basquebromance said:


>


----------



## Flash

basquebromance said:


>


I love Liberal tears!  So sweet!


----------



## Flash

basquebromance said:


>


This Democrat bitch is an insurrectionist saying she won't abide by the Constitution of the US.


----------



## Rye Catcher

TemplarKormac said:


> Cry more. If cars could run on liberal tears, the price of gas now would be irrelevant.


"Cry more??  Maybe if you weren't self centered and have an ounce of empathy, you along with the other sociopaths might consider common sense gun controls.

The issue of guns, as well as abortion, taxes and Green Energy Systems are all wedge issues, the Republican Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters tp gain power.

The Democratic Party is progressive, looking forward to the future, not the past.  They know that guns kill innocent people every day, and our country has the most mass shootings of innocent people than any other developed nation.  

The fact is, "shall not be infringed" is framed by ARMS.  Not guns, per se.  The Republicans,, solely to gain votes at the expense of horrific events, allowed the Brady Bill*** to sunset.

Of course this bill has loop holes, it was a start.

***   Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia.









						Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us
					

Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.




					theconversation.com
				




In the latter of the links above are some examples that ARMS are weapons solely for War:

_A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.

Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.

That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.

Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:_

*If the reader got this far, please open the link and see the chart that is posted after the colon in the last paragraph above.*


----------



## Weatherman2020

basquebromance said:


> SCOTUS = More guns & less woman's rights


I can’t wait until women aren’t allowed to win in sports. 
Oh wait. We’re there thanks to you Leftards.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Flash said:


> This Democrat bitch is an insurrectionist saying she won't abide by the Constitution of the US.


Excuse me, trump is the bitch who not only didn't abide by COTUS he attempted to destroy it.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Rye Catcher said:


> "Cry more??  Maybe if you weren't self centered and have an ounce of empathy, you along with the other sociopaths might consider common sense gun controls.
> 
> The issue of guns, as well as abortion, taxes and Green Energy Systems are all wedge issues, the Republican Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters tp gain power.
> 
> The Democratic Party is progressive, looking forward to the future, not the past.  They know that guns kill innocent people every day, and our country has the most mass shootings of innocent people than any other developed nation.
> 
> The fact is, "shall not be infringed" is framed by ARMS.  Not guns, per se.  The Republicans,, solely to gain votes at the expense of horrific events, allowed the Brady Bill*** to sunset.
> 
> Of course this bill has loop holes, it was a start.
> 
> ***   Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us
> 
> 
> Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theconversation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the latter of the links above are some examples that ARMS are weapons solely for War:
> 
> _A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
> 
> Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
> 
> That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
> 
> A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
> 
> Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
> 
> That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
> 
> Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:_
> 
> *If the reader got this far, please open the link and see the chart that is posted after the colon in the last paragraph above.*


All wedge issues that an overwhelming majority of Americans side with me on.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Rye Catcher said:


> Excuse me, trump is the bitch who not only didn't abide by COTUS he attempted to destroy it.


I drink your tears like a fine wine.


----------



## Rye Catcher

Weatherman2020 said:


> All wedge issues that an overwhelming majority of Americans side with me on.


Of course you are not very bright, and are more sociopthic than the vast majority of Americans who have empathy.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Rye Catcher said:


> Of course you are not very bright, and are more sociopthic than the vast majority of Americans who have empathy.


As the court forever etched in history - The constitutional right to bear arms in public for self defense is not "a second-class right, subject to an entirely different body of rules than the other Bill of Rights guarantees."


----------



## miketx

Flash said:


> I love Liberal tears!  So sweet!


Lol, on another commie forum some idiot is crying about how the protesters outside the homes of the justices will be able to carry guns now. I wonder what justice Thomas thinks about that? One reply said, "Thomas wrote it you stupid sob!"

Lmao.


----------



## miketx

Rye Catcher said:


> "Cry more??  Maybe if you weren't self centered and have an ounce of empathy, you along with the other sociopaths might consider common sense gun controls.
> 
> The issue of guns, as well as abortion, taxes and Green Energy Systems are all wedge issues, the Republican Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters tp gain power.
> 
> The Democratic Party is progressive, looking forward to the future, not the past.  They know that guns kill innocent people every day, and our country has the most mass shootings of innocent people than any other developed nation.
> 
> The fact is, "shall not be infringed" is framed by ARMS.  Not guns, per se.  The Republicans,, solely to gain votes at the expense of horrific events, allowed the Brady Bill*** to sunset.
> 
> Of course this bill has loop holes, it was a start.
> 
> ***   Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us
> 
> 
> Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theconversation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the latter of the links above are some examples that ARMS are weapons solely for War:
> 
> _A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
> 
> Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
> 
> That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
> 
> A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
> 
> Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
> 
> That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
> 
> Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:_
> 
> *If the reader got this far, please open the link and see the chart that is posted after the colon in the last paragraph above.*


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rye Catcher said:


> "Cry more??  Maybe if you weren't self centered and have an ounce of empathy, you along with the other sociopaths might consider common sense gun controls.
> 
> The issue of guns, as well as abortion, taxes and Green Energy Systems are all wedge issues, the Republican Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters tp gain power.
> 
> The Democratic Party is progressive, looking forward to the future, not the past.  They know that guns kill innocent people every day, and our country has the most mass shootings of innocent people than any other developed nation.
> 
> The fact is, "shall not be infringed" is framed by ARMS.  Not guns, per se.  The Republicans,, solely to gain votes at the expense of horrific events, allowed the Brady Bill*** to sunset.
> 
> Of course this bill has loop holes, it was a start.
> 
> ***   Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us
> 
> 
> Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theconversation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the latter of the links above are some examples that ARMS are weapons solely for War:
> 
> _A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
> 
> Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
> 
> That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
> 
> A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
> 
> Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
> 
> That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
> 
> Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:_
> 
> *If the reader got this far, please open the link and see the chart that is posted after the colon in the last paragraph above.*


Your word salads are meaningless.


----------



## Penelope

miketx said:


> Lol, on another commie forum some idiot is crying about how the protesters outside the homes of the justices will be able to carry guns now. I wonder what justice Thomas thinks about that? One reply said, "Thomas wrote it you stupid sob!"
> 
> Lmao.



He should be impeached.


----------



## Rogue AI

Rye Catcher said:


> "Cry more??  Maybe if you weren't self centered and have an ounce of empathy, you along with the other sociopaths might consider common sense gun controls.
> 
> The issue of guns, as well as abortion, taxes and Green Energy Systems are all wedge issues, the Republican Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters tp gain power.
> 
> The Democratic Party is progressive, looking forward to the future, not the past.  They know that guns kill innocent people every day, and our country has the most mass shootings of innocent people than any other developed nation.
> 
> The fact is, "shall not be infringed" is framed by ARMS.  Not guns, per se.  The Republicans,, solely to gain votes at the expense of horrific events, allowed the Brady Bill*** to sunset.
> 
> Of course this bill has loop holes, it was a start.
> 
> ***   Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us
> 
> 
> Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theconversation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the latter of the links above are some examples that ARMS are weapons solely for War:
> 
> _A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
> 
> Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
> 
> That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
> 
> A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
> 
> Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
> 
> That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
> 
> Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:_
> 
> *If the reader got this far, please open the link and see the chart that is posted after the colon in the last paragraph above.*


Wipe away those tears Buttercup, done is done. No amount of crying about it changes that.


----------



## basquebromance

enjoy, maniacs


----------



## Weatherman2020

Penelope said:


> He should be impeached.


God Bless President Trump for making all the key courts conservative.


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rye Catcher said:


> "Cry more?? Maybe if you weren't self centered and have an ounce of empathy, you along with the other sociopaths might consider common sense gun controls.


I would, if they were constitutional. Emphasis on 'constitutional.'

Now tell me, what of any gun controls can you propose that would meet constitutional scrutiny under this Supreme Court?


----------



## BlackSand

Penelope said:


> You going to see abortion laws go back to the state, there will be cause for a revolution..


.

Oh Please ... Let us know when you lock and load and want to get froggy ...   

.​


----------



## miketx

basquebromance said:


> enjoy, maniacs


Come get them commie


----------



## Failzero

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Maybe she is a gangbanger


Bitch is High Yella


----------



## miketx

Penelope said:


> You going to see abortion laws go back to the state, there will be cause for a revolution..


Good, time to round up all you butchers.


----------



## Weatherman2020

Pretty good timing. Day after Chicago bans cops from chasing criminals SCOTUS says their gun restrictions for law abiding citizens is unconstitutional.


----------



## Rogue AI

Penelope said:


> You going to see abortion laws go back to the state, there will be cause for a revolution..


Nothing sends a shiver down the spine like anger dykes in pussyhats. Let the revolution begin.


----------



## LordBrownTrout

A great day for this country!!


----------



## progressive hunter




----------



## LordBrownTrout

basquebromance said:


> New York Governor Kathy Hochul said the Supreme Court has "stripped away the rights" of New York with a decision "frightful in its scope," setting us back "to the days of our founding fathers."



She's a socialist hack.  Of course she hates this country.


----------



## Flash

Rye Catcher said:


> Excuse me, trump is the bitch who not only didn't abide by COTUS he attempted to destroy it.


Sorry Moon Bat but your confusion is making you look like a moron.

The Supreme Court gets to decide Constitutional matters.  I shit you not.  Go look it up if you don't believe me.

The Supreme Court determined that New York had an unconstitutional law restricting the right to keep and bear arms.  

The filthy Insurrectionist Democrat Governor bitch of the State of New York said she was not going to obey the Constitution and encouraged other officials in the state to disobey the law.

She needs to be arrested and thrown in prison for her treason.


----------



## Flash

Rye Catcher said:


> "Cry more??  Maybe if you weren't self centered and have an ounce of empathy, you along with the other sociopaths might consider common sense gun controls.
> 
> The issue of guns, as well as abortion, taxes and Green Energy Systems are all wedge issues, the Republican Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters tp gain power.
> 
> The Democratic Party is progressive, looking forward to the future, not the past.  They know that guns kill innocent people every day, and our country has the most mass shootings of innocent people than any other developed nation.
> 
> The fact is, "shall not be infringed" is framed by ARMS.  Not guns, per se.  The Republicans,, solely to gain votes at the expense of horrific events, allowed the Brady Bill*** to sunset.
> 
> Of course this bill has loop holes, it was a start.
> 
> ***   Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us
> 
> 
> Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theconversation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the latter of the links above are some examples that ARMS are weapons solely for War:
> 
> _A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
> 
> Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
> 
> That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
> 
> A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
> 
> Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
> 
> That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
> 
> Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:_
> 
> *If the reader got this far, please open the link and see the chart that is posted after the colon in the last paragraph above.*


Stop with your fucking Liberal tears you stupid Moon Bat.  It just makes you look like a fucking moron.

The Supreme court reaffirmed today that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right.

It overturned a NY law that restricted the right of an American to carry a firearm.

 It said that the places firearms can be restricted are very limited.

It told you bat shit crazy Libtards that you must use a Constitutional level of scrutiny for firearms laws and not this willy nilly "lets ban everything" approach you Moon Bat assholes have been doing.

As a nice little kicker it reaffirmed that the Second protects modern firearms so you stupid Moon Bats don't get to ban AR-15s or magazines.

If you don't like it then can I suggest that take your Libtard ass and move to Canada?  There the right to keep and bear arms is not a right but a government privileged.  You will be safe there.  Good riddance Moon Bat!


----------



## TemplarKormac

Rye Catcher said:


> They know that guns kill innocent people every day


Guns, in fact, do not kill anyone. They are inanimate objects. Guns are non-sentient.

They kill people via the manipulation of another person.

This means, thereby, people kill people, not guns.

Also, not every person who dies this way is innocent.


----------



## Failzero

We just have to keep our heads down & not let Anti Gun Karen types get an RO or Red Flag us


----------



## boedicca

I did a keyword search in Breyer's dissenting opinion.  Zero results for: gang(s), drug(s), and  trafficking.   What a Prog Hack blubber-screed.


----------



## Failzero

Social Liberalism is a Mento disorder


----------



## para bellum

Time for national reciprocity now.


----------



## Failzero

para bellum said:


> Time for national reciprocity now.


Exactly so My California CCW is GTG in Texas and New York & New Jersey


----------



## Meister

basquebromance said:


>


Keith Olbermann?   Oh man, I couldn't even believe him when he was giving the score of a baseball game.   
I know you don't believe in our Constitution, but perhaps you should actually read it.


----------



## Cougarbear

2aguy said:


> And this will drive the left insane....
> 
> *The Court has little difficulty concluding also that the plain text of the Second Amendment protects Koch’s and Nash’s proposed course of conduct—carrying handguns publicly for self-defense. **Nothing in the Second Amendment’s text draws a home/public distinction with respect to the right to keep and bear arms, and the definition of “bear” naturally encompasses public carry.*
> *Moreover, the Second Amendment guarantees an “individual right to possess and carry weapons in case of confrontation,” id., at 592, and confrontation can surely take place outside the home. Pp. 23–24.*
> 
> And you can hear left wing heads exploding on that one...


The leftist judges of Obama tried to say that gun restrictions are necessary because of all the gun violence. But, they were for one, turning away from all the gang violence their restrictive gun laws were creating. Only gang members could carry guns in their twisted minds. Also, there's the fact that over 2 million people a year have used guns to deter violent attacks against them and others located in sane states, counties, cities and towns.


----------



## Cougarbear

basquebromance said:


> SCOTUS = More guns & less woman's rights


The same number of guns, just more good people will be able to carry and own them, use them against criminals and protect themselves from violent leftist and rightists. And, here's the good news, more women will be able to carry guns to protect themselves and their rights against rape and violence. When a few thugs in the big city subways get shot now, there will be less attacks on women in the subways. They can again take the subways to their jobs and homes. Now, if we could just get a gun inside a woman's belly and teach the unborn baby to shoot to kill if their mother wants to kill them. Then, less violence against brutal women will happen too.


----------



## marvin martian

basquebromance said:


>



He's fomenting insurrection. Typical DemoKKKrat.


----------



## Bootney Lee Farnsworth

2aguy said:


> And here it is......Thomas addressing the lower courts just ignoring Heller and the rest of the Supreme Court rulings...
> 
> *(1) Since Heller and McDonald, the Courts of Appeals have devel- oped a “two-step” framework for analyzing Second Amendment chal- lenges that combines history with means-end scrutiny. The Court re- jects that two-part approach as having one step too many. Step one is broadly consistent with Heller, which demands a test rooted in the Sec- ond Amendment’s text, as informed by history. But Heller and McDon- ald do not support a second step that applies means-end scrutiny in the Second Amendment context.
> 
> Heller’s methodology centered on constitutional text and history. It did not invoke any means-end test such as strict or intermediate scrutiny, and it expressly rejected any interest-balancing inquiry akin to intermediate scrutiny. Pp. 9–15.*


That is the closet to "absolute" language they have ever come, but I suspect they fall short.

We need the right declared absolute, PERIOD and strike down all federal and state gun laws PERIOD!!!!


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

Rye Catcher said:


> Statement:  Another one bites the dust.
> Response:  Only one?  Just one child murdered, just one!



The school shootings are 100% at the hands of leftists. We rational people told you not to make schools gun free zones because your advertising to the nut jobs there will be no resistance. If you don’t believe me post the the school shooting stats before and after gun free zones.!


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

Rye Catcher said:


> "Cry more??  Maybe if you weren't self centered and have an ounce of empathy, you along with the other sociopaths might consider common sense gun controls.
> 
> The issue of guns, as well as abortion, taxes and Green Energy Systems are all wedge issues, the Republican Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters tp gain power.
> 
> The Democratic Party is progressive, looking forward to the future, not the past.  They know that guns kill innocent people every day, and our country has the most mass shootings of innocent people than any other developed nation.
> 
> The fact is, "shall not be infringed" is framed by ARMS.  Not guns, per se.  The Republicans,, solely to gain votes at the expense of horrific events, allowed the Brady Bill*** to sunset.
> 
> Of course this bill has loop holes, it was a start.
> 
> ***   Brady Handgun Violence Prevention Act - Wikipedia.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Did the assault weapons ban of 1994 bring down mass shootings? Here's what the data tells us
> 
> 
> Analysis of the 10 years in which the US banned sales of assault weapons shows that it correlates with a drop in mass shooting deaths – a trend that reversed as soon as the ban expired.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> theconversation.com
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In the latter of the links above are some examples that ARMS are weapons solely for War:
> 
> _A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
> 
> Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
> 
> That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
> 
> A spate of high-profile mass shootings in the U.S. has sparked calls for Congress to look at imposing a ban on so-called assault weapons – covering the types of guns used in both the recent Buffalo grocery attack and that on an elementary school in Uvalde, Texas.
> 
> Such a prohibition has been in place before. As President Joe Biden noted in his June 2, 2022, speech addressing gun violence, almost three decades ago bipartisan support in Congress helped push through a federal assault weapons ban in 1994, as part of the Violent Crime Control and Law Enforcement Act.
> 
> That ban was limited – it covered only certain categories of semi-automatic weapons such as AR-15s and applied to a ban on sales only after the act was signed into law, allowing people to keep hold of weapons purchased before that date. And it also had in it a so-called “sunset provision” that allowed the ban to expire in 2004.
> 
> Nonetheless, the 10-year life span of that ban – with a clear beginning and end date – gives researchers the opportunity to compare what happened with mass shooting deaths before, during and after the prohibition was in place. Our group of injury epidemiologists and trauma surgeons did just that. In 2019, we published a population-based study analyzing the data in a bid to evaluate the effect that the federal ban on assault weapons had on mass shootings, defined by the FBI as a shooting with four or more fatalities, not including the shooter. Here’s what the data shows:_
> 
> *If the reader got this far, please open the link and see the chart that is posted after the colon in the last paragraph above.*


 

It’s the demleftist who not only use wedge issues to get elected they create them out of thin air!  Russian collusion would be a fine example.


----------



## progressive hunter

Bootney Lee Farnsworth said:


> That is the closet to "absolute" language they have ever come, but I suspect they fall short.
> 
> We need the right declared absolute, PERIOD and strike down all federal and state gun laws PERIOD!!!!


Kavanaugh fucked that up with his input,,


----------



## Flash

para bellum said:


> Time for national reciprocity now.


Time for National Constitutional Carry.

Actually that was the intent of our Founding Fathers.


----------



## ColonelAngus

How the fuck did 3 judges violate their oath and go against the plain text of the Constitution?


----------



## progressive hunter

ColonelAngus said:


> How the fuck did 3 judges violate their oath and go against the plain text of the Constitution?


because they have no honor or morals,,
ideology has no place in the courts,,


----------



## 2aguy

ColonelAngus said:


> How the fuck did 3 judges violate their oath and go against the plain text of the Constitution?






Oooooh.....Oooooooh...pick me, pick me!"  

Is it because they are leftists, who believe that what they want trumps truth, facts, reality, human history, human nature and the law?


----------



## BS Filter

basquebromance said:


> The Supreme Court must be dismantled, rebuilt, and expanded to save the Constitution.


Yes.  They're supporting the Constitution, and we can't have that.  Harumph harumph.


----------



## BS Filter

progressive hunter said:


> because they have no honor or morals,,
> ideology has no place in the courts,,


Yes, yes.  We cannot allow Justices to make rulings based on the Constitution.  Harumph harumph.


----------



## Weatherman2020




----------



## Missourian

basquebromance said:


> SCOTUS = More guns & less woman's rights


Women carry guns.


----------



## Missourian

bigrebnc1775 said:


> View attachment 661296


----------



## Missourian

skews13 said:


> Be careful what you wish for dipshit



You've got the stamping feet and shaking your first at the sky down to a science,  but your rending of garments and gnashing of teeth needs some work.


----------



## Weatherman2020

basquebromance said:


> SCOTUS = More guns & less woman's rights


----------



## BS Filter

Golfing Gator said:


> another good ruling.  SOCTUS has been on a roll.


Get ready for the abortion ruling.  There will be blood in the streets, how fitting.


----------



## Pellinore

Yep, they sure did.  Struck it right down, inscribed now in the books as surely as _Brown v. Board_ or _Roe v. Wade._ 

Leftists, this is what it looks like to get outplayed.  There are more Democrats in this country than there are Republicans, and yet there hasn't been a liberal-leaning court since 1969.  Gerrymandering is dirty pool but effective; the right is doing it better than you, and it's probably going to cost you about another five or six House seats that you can't afford.  Democratic Presidential candidates have won the popular vote four times out of five since 2000, but Republicans have made sure the President count is even because they play the game better.  The most recent Republican President crammed through three young Supreme Court Justices in a single term, while Democrats have seated a total of six in the last half a century.  This is what it looks like to have your lunch eaten while you squabble about minutiae and insist on the perfect at the expense of the good.

Rightists, enjoy your happy time, because more people are going to get shot and killed because of this ruling. Statistics that you handwave away as Communist manipulation have shown over and over that having more guns results in more shootings and more deaths, but you cling to your Second Amendment absolutism so hard that the result is foreseeable. People in even more states will now be more likely to return fire when they should run away or blaze-of-glory their cubicle farm after they get a bad performance review. Police will also have fewer mechanisms to remove psychos from the streets, so by all means, enjoy your hardware collection and _Dirty Harry_ fever dreams, because your neighbors or possibly your family and friends are going to pay for it.

So well done, everyone; one more step toward us being an even more fragmented society.  Maybe this time we won't get off as lucky as we did the last two times it was this bad.


----------



## Missourian

skews13 said:


> Wait until every violent thug, and a fast growing Latino population are all carrying around these conservative white peoples neighborhoods, schools, and churches.
> 
> Oh, did I forget to mention the rather large, and growing Muslim population also? No?


That will be the end of the democrat party, as we'll all be talking guns and getting to know each other while the leftist hide under their beds.

I have no idea what you have against Hispanics and Muslims but the only Latinos and Muslims or Whites or Black that I worry about carrying guns weren't waiting patiently for the Supreme Court to OK it.

But I have to say, your casual bigotry is very telling.


----------



## Missourian

basquebromance said:


> This is far worse than our most f*cked up nightmare scenarios
> 
> We are royally screwed
> 
> Unless the Supreme Court is expanded, the U.S. as we knew it is over
> 
> This was Putin's master plan, he tapped into Republican's religious & guns fetishes & he has single handedly destroyed us


What's this 'we' shit... You're not an American.


----------



## 2aguy

Pellinore said:


> Yep, they sure did.  Struck it right down, inscribed now in the books as surely as _Brown v. Board_ or _Roe v. Wade._
> 
> Leftists, this is what it looks like to get outplayed.  There are more Democrats in this country than there are Republicans, and yet there hasn't been a liberal-leaning court since 1969.  Gerrymandering is dirty pool but effective; the right is doing it better than you, and it's probably going to cost you about another five or six House seats that you can't afford.  Democratic Presidential candidates have won the popular vote four times out of five since 2000, but Republicans have made sure the President count is even because they play the game better.  The most recent Republican President crammed through three young Supreme Court Justices in a single term, while Democrats have seated a total of six in the last half a century.  This is what it looks like to have your lunch eaten while you squabble about minutiae and insist on the perfect at the expense of the good.
> 
> Rightists, enjoy your happy time, because more people are going to get shot and killed because of this ruling. Statistics that you handwave away as Communist manipulation have shown over and over that having more guns results in more shootings and more deaths, but you cling to your Second Amendment absolutism so hard that the result is foreseeable. People in even more states will now be more likely to return fire when they should run away or blaze-of-glory their cubicle farm after they get a bad performance review. Police will also have fewer mechanisms to remove psychos from the streets, so by all means, enjoy your hardware collection and _Dirty Harry_ fever dreams, because your neighbors or possibly your family and friends are going to pay for it.
> 
> So well done, everyone; one more step toward us being an even more fragmented society.  Maybe this time we won't get off as lucky as we did the last two times it was this bad.



*have shown over and over that having more guns results in more shootings and more deaths,

You mean...except for the 27 years when Americans were buying more guns and actually carrying them in public...when the gun murder rate dropped 49%,  and the gun crime rate dropped 75%*

*You mean except for that....right?

You know, 27 years of actual, real world experience in the U.S.....except for that...right?*

Over  27 years,  from 1993  to the year 2015, we went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 19.4 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2019 (in 2020 that number is 21.52 million)...guess what happened...

New Concealed Carry Report For 2020: 19.48 Million Permit Holders, 820,000 More Than Last Year despite many states shutting down issuing permits because of the Coronavirus - Crime Prevention Research Center


-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

*Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.*


This means that access to guns does not create gun crime........

Why do our democrat party controlled cities have gun crime problems?

*What changed in 2015?*

The democrat party did 3 things...

1) they began a war on the police that forced officers to stop pro active police work, allowing criminals to run wild.

2) they began to release the most violent and dangerous gun offenders over and over again, not matter how many times they had been arrested for gun crimes

3) they used their brown shirts, blm/antifa to burn, loot and murder for 7 months in primarily black neighborhoods while the democrat party mayors ordered the police to stand down and not stop them......in order to hurt Trump during the election.


----------



## Missourian

Pellinore said:


> Gerrymandering is dirty pool but effective; the right is doing it better than you, and it's probably going to cost you about another five or six House seats that you can't afford


Fake news...









						Democrats decry gerrymandering — unless they control the maps
					

As Democrats across the country blast aggressive Republican gerrymanders as a blatant threat to America’s democratic order, party leaders in two blue states are playing hardball with their own cong…




					thehill.com


----------



## 2aguy

Pellinore said:


> Yep, they sure did.  Struck it right down, inscribed now in the books as surely as _Brown v. Board_ or _Roe v. Wade._
> 
> Leftists, this is what it looks like to get outplayed.  There are more Democrats in this country than there are Republicans, and yet there hasn't been a liberal-leaning court since 1969.  Gerrymandering is dirty pool but effective; the right is doing it better than you, and it's probably going to cost you about another five or six House seats that you can't afford.  Democratic Presidential candidates have won the popular vote four times out of five since 2000, but Republicans have made sure the President count is even because they play the game better.  The most recent Republican President crammed through three young Supreme Court Justices in a single term, while Democrats have seated a total of six in the last half a century.  This is what it looks like to have your lunch eaten while you squabble about minutiae and insist on the perfect at the expense of the good.
> 
> Rightists, enjoy your happy time, because more people are going to get shot and killed because of this ruling. Statistics that you handwave away as Communist manipulation have shown over and over that having more guns results in more shootings and more deaths, but you cling to your Second Amendment absolutism so hard that the result is foreseeable. People in even more states will now be more likely to return fire when they should run away or blaze-of-glory their cubicle farm after they get a bad performance review. Police will also have fewer mechanisms to remove psychos from the streets, so by all means, enjoy your hardware collection and _Dirty Harry_ fever dreams, because your neighbors or possibly your family and friends are going to pay for it.
> 
> So well done, everyone; one more step toward us being an even more fragmented society.  Maybe this time we won't get off as lucky as we did the last two times it was this bad.




* Police will also have fewer mechanisms to remove psychos from the streets,*

*Would you please explain this statement......give examples of what you mean....

For example, a normal person is stopped by the police and has a gun....the police run their name and information....they are not felons, they have no warrants......there is no reason to "remove," them from the streets....

Then....

The police stop an individual with a gun....they are a felon, who can't buy, own, or, in the context of this thread....carry a gun in public........the police can now arrest this felon, and "remove," them from the streets...

So again, please explain your statement...*


----------



## Ralph Norton

Weatherman2020 said:


> View attachment 661408


That's hot.


----------



## Weatherman2020

BS Filter said:


> Get ready for the abortion ruling.  There will be blood in the streets, how fitting.


Leftards are a very violent species.


----------



## marvin martian

Penelope said:


> He should be impeached.


----------



## Flash

ColonelAngus said:


> How the fuck did 3 judges violate their oath and go against the plain text of the Constitution?


They were appointed by stupid Democrat Presidents (Slick Willy and The Worthless Negro).


----------



## Flash

Pellinore said:


> Rightists, enjoy your happy time, because more people are going to get shot and killed because of this ruling.


No, you are confused.  Most states have either Constitutional carry or shall issue permits.

Only a few of the Commie states have "may issue" that usually becomes "no issue".

We have shall issue here in Florida and our homicide rates are lower than in New York with may issue.

This case today told the oppressive Democrat yahoos in New York that the Constitution requires them to allow their citizens to have the same rights as most of the rest of the US.

The right to keep and bear arms is a Constitutional right.  I shit you not.  Go look it up.  It is the second one listed in the Bill of Rights.

Crime won't change because the crooks always ignore any law.  It will just make it easier for law abiding citizens to protect themselves and enjoy their Constitutional rights and that is a good thing.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Cougarbear said:


> “Now, if we could just get a gun inside a woman's belly and teach the unborn baby to shoot to kill if their mother wants to kill them…”



Brilliant comment! 

Actually, the gun nut right and liberals both are probably exaggerating the scope and effect of this ruling … or at least I hope so. I expect that NY State and any others effected will manage a workaround. Are the registration and issuance of highly vetted “carry licenses” outlawed by this ruling? As I understand it (I could be wrong) the ruling is very broad but it mainly explicitly forbids authorities to ask that there be a specific reason for carrying. Thus it technically puts the burden on the state & police authorities to prove a specific person shouldn’t be issued one. Haven’t read the ruling, or seen sober reviews of its likely impact, and probably few here have either.

This Supreme Court ruling sure will make recruitment of police more difficult and expensive in big crowded cities! It will make their jobs *much harder*, too. Expect more dead cops, more regular Joes killed in bar fights and “road rage” disputes. If nobody is around, how easy to say: “the other guy drew first” or “I was just standing my ground.”

But there will be some saved lives too, I’m sure, and others (minorities especially) who really need to carry weapons for self defense in tough neighborhoods, will surely be saved from unfair and life-altering legal prosecutions just for carrying. Carrying a concealed gun certainly makes many of us … *feel*  safer, but whether in the end we will actually *be* safer as a result of this ruling, we will have to wait and see. I have my doubts.

By the way, I have a carry license (not in NY) and my vetting took many months, required two visits to the police department, fingerprinting, payment for “expenses,” and God knows what level of investigation. That is the minimum I expect will be implemented in states effected by this ruling.

I hope and expect they still can keep civilians carrying guns off of airplanes, out of courthouses … and keep guns away from the strong trigger-fingers of those who are about as intelligent as … embryos.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

basquebromance said:


>


You can no longer make your bullshit claim you are not a democrat. You went full retard in this thread.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Rye Catcher said:


> Of course you are not very bright, and are more sociopthic than the vast majority of Americans who have empathy.


Leftist tears taste so good with leadslingers whiskey.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Penelope said:


> He should be impeached.


Irony a lot of Democrats need to be impeached andnavfew Rino's for their unconstitutional actions.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Pellinore said:


> Yep, they sure did.  Struck it right down, inscribed now in the books as surely as _Brown v. Board_ or _Roe v. Wade._
> 
> Leftists, this is what it looks like to get outplayed.  There are more Democrats in this country than there are Republicans, and yet there hasn't been a liberal-leaning court since 1969.  Gerrymandering is dirty pool but effective; the right is doing it better than you, and it's probably going to cost you about another five or six House seats that you can't afford.  Democratic Presidential candidates have won the popular vote four times out of five since 2000, but Republicans have made sure the President count is even because they play the game better.  The most recent Republican President crammed through three young Supreme Court Justices in a single term, while Democrats have seated a total of six in the last half a century.  This is what it looks like to have your lunch eaten while you squabble about minutiae and insist on the perfect at the expense of the good.
> 
> Rightists, enjoy your happy time, because more people are going to get shot and killed because of this ruling. Statistics that you handwave away as Communist manipulation have shown over and over that having more guns results in more shootings and more deaths, but you cling to your Second Amendment absolutism so hard that the result is foreseeable. People in even more states will now be more likely to return fire when they should run away or blaze-of-glory their cubicle farm after they get a bad performance review. Police will also have fewer mechanisms to remove psychos from the streets, so by all means, enjoy your hardware collection and _Dirty Harry_ fever dreams, because your neighbors or possibly your family and friends are going to pay for it.
> 
> So well done, everyone; one more step toward us being an even more fragmented society.  Maybe this time we won't get off as lucky as we did the last two times it was this bad.


Gerrymandering was started by democrats when was roev wade? As far as the second amendment goes shall not be infringed.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Weatherman2020 said:


> View attachment 661408


----------



## Flash

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> By the way, I have a carry license (not in NY) and my vetting took many months, required two visits to the police department, fingerprinting, payment for “expenses,” and God knows what level of investigation. That is the minimum I expect will be implemented in states effected by this ruling.


So you were judged guilty until you proved yourself innocent and had to get permission from the goddamn government before you were allowed to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?  The very one that specifically says that it shall not be infringed?

You are bragging about that?  LOL!  The real Tom Paine would kick you ass.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Brilliant comment!
> 
> Actually, the gun nut right and liberals both are probably exaggerating the scope and effect of this ruling … or at least I hope so. I expect that NY State and any others effected will manage a workaround. Are the registration and issuance of highly vetted “carry licenses” outlawed by this ruling? As I understand it (I could be wrong) the ruling is very broad but it mainly explicitly forbids authorities to ask that there be a specific reason for carrying. Thus it technically puts the burden on the state & police authorities to prove a specific person shouldn’t be issued one. Haven’t read the ruling, or seen sober reviews of its likely impact, and probably few here have either.
> 
> This Supreme Court ruling sure will make recruitment of police more difficult and expensive in big crowded cities! It will make their jobs *much harder*, too. Expect more dead cops, more regular Joes killed in bar fights and “road rage” disputes. If nobody is around, how easy to say: “the other guy drew first” or “I was just standing my ground.”
> 
> But there will be some saved lives too, I’m sure, and others (minorities especially) who really need to carry weapons for self defense in tough neighborhoods, will surely be saved from unfair and life-altering legal prosecutions just for carrying. Carrying a concealed gun certainly makes many of us … *feel*  safer, but whether in the end we will actually *be* safer as a result of this ruling, we will have to wait and see. I have my doubts.
> 
> By the way, I have a carry license (not in NY) and my vetting took many months, required two visits to the police department, fingerprinting, payment for “expenses,” and God knows what level of investigation. That is the minimum I expect will be implemented in states effected by this ruling.
> 
> I hope and expect they still can keep civilians carrying guns off of airplanes, out of courthouses … and keep guns away from the strong trigger-fingers of those who are about as intelligent as … embryos.


The ruling struck down the unconstitutional new York gun control law. Nothing exaggerating about that


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

ColonelAngus said:


> How the fuck did 3 judges violate their oath and go against the plain text of the Constitution?



They come to decisions based solely on feelings. In other words, they’re leftists.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Flash said:


> So you were judged guilty until you proved yourself innocent and had to get permission from the goddamn government before you were allowed to enjoy a right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights?  The very one that specifically says that it shall not be infringed?
> 
> You are bragging about that?  LOL!  The real Tom Paine would kick you ass.


Not at all. The real Thomas Paine had “Common Sense” and did not then carry a semi-automatic pistol … or a Stinger Missile or a bazooka either. 

When necessary he carried a one-shot musket and defended his adopted country, attached to George Washington’s staff. His *real weapon* was his pen and his unwavering commitment to his vision of a democratic society, opposing all authoritarian assholes, and to basing society on the protection of the fundamental rights of men … even slaves and foreigners. He was an internationalist who took his pen and understanding of Human Rights to France, where he opposed *armed mobs* (along with his friend LaFayette) when they threatened the genuine gains of the Revolution there, even getting himself jailed and almost executed by those very mobs.

You have no idea what kind of man Thomas Paine was. He was a working man who hated the lies and superstitions of the clergy and religion, he defended women’s rights and urged money be spent to provide welfare to the old and orphans and public schools (that didn’t exist yet).

You are like the “Winter Soldiers” he criticized, who were quick to pick up a gun but slow to stand fast in difficult times, or perhaps more like the British oligarchy’s conservative supporters and well armed mercenaries.

Paine opposed the very creation of a Senate as an un-democratic feature of our Constitution … which he saw would probably ultimately serve the wealthy and factional interests. He thought it was reminiscent of the “House of Lords” in England. He would not hesitate to change the Constitution if it proved itself to be an obstacle to its basic aim of serving “the General Welfare” of the people.

The 2nd Amendment assumes a world in which a “well regulated militia” exists and is necessary. It does not assume a world where an oligarchy of one tenth of one percent of the rich own as much wealth as 40% or 50% of the citizenry, where they control two sh*t parties, Congress and the Supreme Court, where the people have been rendered so dumb they are ready to kill each other over idiot cultural issues, and destroy our once great country too.


----------



## Sunsettommy

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Not at all. The real Thomas Paine had “Common Sense” and did not then carry a semi-automatic pistol … or a Stinger Missile or a bazooka either.
> 
> When necessary he carried a one-shot musket and defended his adopted country, attached to George Washington’s staff. His *real weapon* was his pen and his unwavering commitment to his vision of a democratic society, opposing all authoritarian assholes, and to basing society on the protection of the fundamental rights of men … even slaves and foreigners. He was an internationalist who took his pen and understanding of Human Rights to France, where he opposed *armed mobs* (along with his friend LaFayette) when they threatened the genuine gains of the Revolution there, even getting himself jailed and almost executed by those very mobs.
> 
> You have no idea what kind of man Thomas Paine was. He was a working man who hated the lies and superstitions of the clergy and religion, he defended women’s rights and urged money be spent to provide welfare to the old and orphans and public schools (that didn’t exist yet).
> 
> You are like the “Winter Soldiers” he criticized, who were quick to pick up a gun but slow to stand fast in difficult times, or perhaps more like the British oligarchy’s conservative supporters and well armed mercenaries.
> 
> Paine opposed the very creation of a Senate as an un-democratic feature of our Constitution … which he saw would probably ultimately serve the wealthy and factional interests. He thought it was reminiscent of the “House of Lords” in England. He would not hesitate to change the Constitution if it proved itself to be an obstacle to its basic aim of serving “the General Welfare” of the people.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment assumes a world in which a “well regulated militia” exists and is necessary. It does not assume a world where an oligarchy of one tenth of one percent of the rich own as much wealth as 40% or 50% of the citizenry, where they control two sh*t parties, Congress and the Supreme Court, where the people have been rendered so dumb they are ready to kill each other over idiot cultural issues, and destroy our once great country too.



Why do you lie about Thomas Paine so much I have his three books and they are all about people having the FREEDOM and Personal rights to support and defend themselves.

*Thomas Paine of Pennsylvania:*



> _"[A]rms discourage and keep the invader and plunderer in awe, and preserve order in the world as well as property. . . Horrid mischief would ensue were the law-abiding deprived of the use of them."_ — Thoughts On Defensive War, 1775



America's Founding Fathers On The Individual Right To Keep And Bear Arms​


----------



## LAUGHatLEFTISTS

Golfing Gator said:


> another good ruling.  SOCTUS has been on a roll.



Of course the country gets good constitutional rulings when we have justices that use the law and not their feelings.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

> “Why do you lie about Thomas Paine so much I have his three books and they are all about people having the FREEDOM and Personal rights to support and defend themselves.” — Sunsettomy



Thomas Paine did indeed support “the people having the FREEDOM and Personal rights to defend themselves.” He supported the 2nd Amendment.

But unlike most of the rightwingers here, he had “Common Sense” and was concerned for the poor. He was in some ways the first advocate for introducing state social welfare policies, and favored necessary taxation. He came from England, so he saw how a more “mature” oligarchic state functioned when population density was greater and the state more developed. This was the origin of some of his proposals. He was also everything else I said he was.

By the way, he became a great opponent of the famous Conservative Edmund Burke, and wrote a whole book polemicizing against him — a book which you obviously *didn’t* read.


----------



## skye

BLESS Justice Thomas!!!!!!!

Happy Birthday Sir!!!!!


----------



## Flash

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Not at all. The real Thomas Paine had “Common Sense” and did not then carry a semi-automatic pistol … or a Stinger Missile or a bazooka either.
> 
> When necessary he carried a one-shot musket and defended his adopted country, attached to George Washington’s staff. His *real weapon* was his pen and his unwavering commitment to his vision of a democratic society, opposing all authoritarian assholes, and to basing society on the protection of the fundamental rights of men … even slaves and foreigners. He was an internationalist who took his pen and understanding of Human Rights to France, where he opposed *armed mobs* (along with his friend LaFayette) when they threatened the genuine gains of the Revolution there, even getting himself jailed and almost executed by those very mobs.
> 
> You have no idea what kind of man Thomas Paine was. He was a working man who hated the lies and superstitions of the clergy and religion, he defended women’s rights and urged money be spent to provide welfare to the old and orphans and public schools (that didn’t exist yet).
> 
> You are like the “Winter Soldiers” he criticized, who were quick to pick up a gun but slow to stand fast in difficult times, or perhaps more like the British oligarchy’s conservative supporters and well armed mercenaries.
> 
> Paine opposed the very creation of a Senate as an un-democratic feature of our Constitution … which he saw would probably ultimately serve the wealthy and factional interests. He thought it was reminiscent of the “House of Lords” in England. He would not hesitate to change the Constitution if it proved itself to be an obstacle to its basic aim of serving “the General Welfare” of the people.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment assumes a world in which a “well regulated militia” exists and is necessary. It does not assume a world where an oligarchy of one tenth of one percent of the rich own as much wealth as 40% or 50% of the citizenry, where they control two sh*t parties, Congress and the Supreme Court, where the people have been rendered so dumb they are ready to kill each other over idiot cultural issues, and destroy our once great country too.


You are confused Moon Bat.

The Supreme Court has determined that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that is not dependent on the membership of any organization.  I shit you not.  Go look it up.  It is in the _Heller _decision.   It was actually reaffirmed today in the _Bruen _decision.

The real Tom Paine was a Patriot that used the pen to defend the Liberties that dumbshits like you would give away to the government.  Like bragging how successful you were to permission from the goddamn government to enjoy a right that was in the Bill of Rights and clearly said it could not be infringed.

You are a charlatan and should be ashamed of yourself to use Paine's name to spout your Moon Bat bullshit..  More likely you are one of these idiots that reads a little bit on a Google serch and thinks you are an expert on history.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Flash said:


> You are confused Moon Bat.
> 
> The Supreme Court has determined that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right that is not dependent on the membership of any organization.  I shit you not.  Go look it up.  It is in the _Heller _decision.   It was actually reaffirmed today in the _Bruen _decision.
> 
> The real Tom Paine was a Patriot that used the pen to defend the Liberties that dumbshits like you would give away to the government.  Like bragging how successful you were to permission from the goddamn government to enjoy a right that was in the Bill of Rights and clearly said it could not be infringed.
> 
> You are a charlatan and should be ashamed of yourself to use Paine's name to spout your Moon Bat bullshit..  More likely you are one of these idiots that reads a little bit on a Google serch and thinks you are an expert on history.


You think insulting me and calling me a “Moonbat” makes anything I said less true? I said nothing about the history of Supreme Court rulings on this issue, of which I’m familiar. Nor did I “brag” about anything. I just told the simple truth about my own experience and views. Folks can make their own decision about which of us are more well read … or have more common sense, common courtesy, and perhaps even common decency.

P.S. I did make one mistake. I compared you to a “Winter Soldier.” Obviously I meant a “Sunshine Soldier.”


----------



## Flash

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> You think insulting me and calling me a “Moonbat” makes anything I said less true? I said nothing about the history of Supreme Court rulings on this issue, of which I’m familiar. Nor did I “brag” about anything. I just told the simple truth about my own experience and views. Folks can make their own decision about which of us are more well read … or have more common sense and common decency.
> 
> P.S. I did make one mistake. I compared you to a “Winter Soldier.” Obviously I meant a “Sunshine Soldier.”


Once you started your silly ass bragging about how you jumped through all the hoops to get government permission to enjoy a right that was guaranteed under the Constitution to not be infringed you lost all credibility.

Nothing you say means anything.  Go back to do your Google surfing.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

P.S.

Paine left a unique legacy. He was a fighter, and he was “ahead of his time” in many ways. He wasn’t perfect. But he certainly would have fought against the Confederacy. If he were alive today he would use his mordant wit to ridicule mercilessly those who still use the Confederate flag — even in the 21st Century — as their avatar. He was a serious man and not a clown. Flash would *not* have liked him.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Thomas Paine did indeed support “the people having the FREEDOM and Personal rights to defend themselves.” He supported the 2nd Amendment.
> 
> But unlike most of the rightwingers here, he had “Common Sense” and was concerned for the poor. He was in some ways the first advocate for introducing state social welfare policies, and favored necessary taxation. He came from England, so he saw how a more “mature” oligarchic state functioned when population density was greater and the state more developed. This was the origin of some of his proposals. He was also everything else I said he was.
> 
> By the way, he became a great opponent of the famous Conservative Edmund Burke, and wrote a whole book polemicizing against him — a book which you obviously *didn’t* read.


Shut the fuck up dumb ass you have no fucking common sense.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> P.S.
> 
> Paine left a unique legacy. He was a fighter, and he was “ahead of his time” in many ways. He wasn’t perfect. But he certainly would have fought against the Confederacy. If he were alive today he would use his mordant wit to ridicule mercilessly those who still use the Confederate flag — even in the 21st Century — as their avatar. He was a serious man and not a clown. Flash would *not* have liked him.


Irrelevant bullshit Paine would have tarred and feathered your ass.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> You think insulting me and calling me a “Moonbat” makes anything I said less true? I said nothing about the history of Supreme Court rulings on this issue, of which I’m familiar. Nor did I “brag” about anything. I just told the simple truth about my own experience and views. Folks can make their own decision about which of us are more well read … or have more common sense, common courtesy, and perhaps even common decency.
> 
> P.S. I did make one mistake. I compared you to a “Winter Soldier.” Obviously I meant a “Sunshine Soldier.”


My mind is made up you're a blooming idiot.


----------



## Stann

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Another one bites the dust.


...and once again we're going in the wrong direction. If you think we have a lot of deaths from gun violence now, just wait,  this action has just multiplied it all. Whether that be tenfold or 100 fold, unfortunately we will soon find out.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Stann said:


> ...and once again we're going in the wrong direction. If you think we have a lot of deaths from gun violence now, just wait,  this action has just multiplied it all. Whether that be tenfold or 100 fold, unfortunately we will soon find out.


Oh the fear of a criminal confession. The only people in fear are criminals this is a day of celebration and a day of reckoning for you criminals.


----------



## Flash

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> P.S.
> 
> Paine left a unique legacy. He was a fighter, and he was “ahead of his time” in many ways. He wasn’t perfect. But he certainly would have fought against the Confederacy. If he were alive today he would use his mordant wit to ridicule mercilessly those who still use the Confederate flag — even in the 21st Century — as their avatar. He was a serious man and not a clown. Flash would *not* have liked him.


I also have a concealed carry permit.  

However, unlike you stupid Moon Bats that don't know a damn thing about the Constitution I am not bragging about doing all the things the filthy government demanded I do to get their filthy permission.  I think the permitting process is despicable and this is in Florida where it is a shall issue state with a relatively easy process.

The state in not safer because I have the stupid permit.  However, I lost my Liberty by having to get government permission for a right that is guaranteed in the Bill of Rights and specifically says "shall not be infringed".

You don't know jackshit about the concept of Liberty,


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Shut the fuck up dumb ass you have no fucking common sense.


Ah, when rightwing fanatics are confronted by honest criticism or even just reasonable differing views, when they are frustrated and don’t know how to answer intelligently … they *almost* *always* resort to insults.


----------



## badger2

'His wife and child had died of smallpox, and he, sick of living alone in the dark woods, had come to Philadelphia, taken works as a  hand in a flour mill, and there joined the Associators. Armed with a long rifle, clad in buckskin leggings and a hunting shirt, he almost alone in that motley group of militia appeared fitted for the business on which they were embarked. He took a liking to Paine, if for no other reason than that Paine continued to carry his own musket. He said to him once, in his slow, back-country drawl:
"Citizen, what do you think of our little war?"
"Things start slowly," Paine said.
"Yes but I reckon I seldom seen a seedier lot of fighting men."
"Well, give them time -- you don't make soldiers overnight. And you don't make a new world in one day."
....
Meanwhile, Washington had split his army, placing half his men in Brooklyn to stave off a flank attack that might isolate him on the slim ridge of Manhattan.
(Howard Fast, Citizen Tom Paine, pp. 124-5)


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

martybegan said:


> That means "shall issue" is now the law of the land.
> 
> Look for NYC to assign one Police officer to issue permits for the entire city, and a 2 year backlog.


That means that people can now conceal carry in CALIFORNIA!?!


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Ah, when rightwing fanatics are confronted by honest criticism or even just reasonable differing views, when they are frustrated and don’t know how to answer intelligently … they *almost* *always* resort to insults.


Criticism is ok but when you push a lie you dumb son of a bitch it sounds like the ravings of a lunatic. Criticism deals with honesty and you have none. Especially if you claim too have common sense.


----------



## Batcat

basquebromance said:


> The Supreme Court must be dismantled, rebuilt, and expanded to save the Constitution.


Democrats do not want to save the Constitution, they want to destroy it. 

,   


basquebromance said:


> women are strong enough, they don't need "self-defense", wise guy


So a 110 pound woman can take on a 180 pound man and have a even chance of winning In your opinion. 

I believe she has a good chance if she has a firearm available and is practicing situational awareness.


----------



## martybegan

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> That means that people can now conceal carry in CALIFORNIA!?!



It means they can't be denied a CCW just because the local government feels like it.

Now expect a long wait period coupled with onerous fees and training requirements.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Criticism is ok but when you push a lie you dumb son of a bitch it sounds like the ravings of a lunatic …


No lies from me, just thoughtful opinions from an old ex-NRA member who is fully licensed for concealed carry and frequently does carry. You keep proving my point with your insults.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> No lies from me, just thoughtful opinions from an old ex-NRA member who is fully licensed for concealed carry and frequently does carry. You keep proving my point with your insults.


If you say you have common sense and support gun control you have no common sense and therefore are lying.


----------



## westwall

skews13 said:


> Be careful what you wish for dipshit





You first, moron.


----------



## justoffal

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Are you saying women don't have a right to self defense?


He doesn't want parents armed when they find out his intentions toward their kids....it upsets him.


----------



## justoffal

bigrebnc1775 said:


> If you say you have common sense and support gun control you have no common sense and therefore are lying.


I suggest you attack him physically in that case...and soon.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

martybegan said:


> That means "shall issue" is now the law of the land.
> 
> Look for NYC to assign one Police officer to issue permits for the entire city, and a 2 year backlog.



You're right.

Requiring a 'Permit" for a RIGHT, from any size government (local or federal) is a way of saying "Fuck your rights, we'll control your rights anyway"
A governments job should be enforcing RIGHTS and not legislating them from their own town halls and from their court benches.
If We The People had any commitment to our freedom we would not tolerate anything less.

Since the Supreme Court did not specifically state in their opinion as such, NewYork and elsewhere will continue to circumvent the LAW by making the process of enjoying your RIGHTS as difficult and painful as possible.   Expect it to take years for NewYork bureaucrats to process your paperwork allowing you to exercise your "Rights", essentially continuing their "May Issue" policy

It will be up to individuals and organizations like GOA to sue them into submission.  However, no court in NewYork city jurisdiction will ever rule in favor of your right to carry.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

basquebromance said:


> Guns don't kill people.
> 
> Supreme Courts beholden to the NRA kill people.



And yet you completely support abortion rights.
You can't see it, but your hypocrisy borders on insanity.

19 killed by a lone madman and you want Constitutional Rights erased for all.

400 million humans brutally murdered before birth, and you celebrate.
Sickness and irrationality is a common theme among the Left..


----------



## martybegan

BasicHumanUnit said:


> You're right.
> 
> Requiring a 'Permit" for a RIGHT, from any size government (local or federal) is a way of saying "Fuck your rights, we'll control your rights anyway"
> A governments job should be enforcing RIGHTS and not legislating them from their own town halls and from their court benches.
> If We The People had any commitment to our freedom we would not tolerate anything less.
> 
> Since the Supreme Court did not specifically state in their opinion as such, NewYork and elsewhere will continue to circumvent the LAW by making the process of enjoying your RIGHTS as difficult and painful as possible.   Expect it to take years for NewYork bureaucrats to process your paperwork allowing you to exercise your "Rights", essentially continuing their "May Issue" policy
> 
> It will be up to individuals and organizations like GOA to sue them into submission.  However, no court in NewYork city jurisdiction will ever rule in favor of your right to carry.



The thing is it will be enforced by federal courts, not State courts, as the Sullivan law was found to be unconstitutional, so at least theoretically the federal courts are supposed to follow such a clear Supreme Court mandate.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

bigrebnc1775 said:


> If you say you have common sense and support gun control you have no common sense and therefore are lying.


As I said in my first comment here, I support “the registration and issuance of highly vetted” concealed carry licenses. You may call that “reasonable gun control” if you like. The point is to weed out criminals, lunatics and emotionally prone-to-violence types, to make sure those who carry weapons know the relevant laws about when and where and what they can carry and use, etc. I support “Red Flag” laws like those already adopted successfully in FL.

By the way there is not much logic to your comment above. Even people who have *no common sense* are not necessarily people prone to lying. In fact there are situations where common sense requires one to lie. This isn’t one of them. Which of us has more “common sense” is … at the least very debatable.

This is a time in our nation’s history when common sense is sadly lacking. Not just in our politicians, but among our people too. We need much less self-righteous lunacy and hysteria on both sides, much less demagogy, much less mad party partisanship.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Rye Catcher said:


> "Cry more??  Maybe if you weren't self centered and have an ounce of empathy, you along with the other sociopaths might consider common sense gun controls.


There's no sense whatsoever in the unnecessary and ineffective restrictions you support.

The issue of guns, as well as abortion, taxes and Green Energy Systems are all wedge issues, the Democratic Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters tp gain power.


Rye Catcher said:


> The fact is, "shall not be infringed" is framed by ARMS.  Not guns, per se.  The Republicans,, solely to gain votes at the expense of horrific events, allowed the Brady Bill*** to sunset.


Google NICS.
Read its origin and history.
Apologize.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> As I said in my first comment here, I support “the registration and issuance of highly vetted” concealed carry licenses. You may call that “reasonable gun control” if you like. The point is to weed out criminals, lunatics and emotionally prone-to-violence types, to make sure those who carry weapons know the relevant laws about when and where and what they can carry and use, etc.


You know criminals do not bother with licensing, registration, and carry permits - right?


----------



## justoffal

BasicHumanUnit said:


> And yet you completely support abortion rights.
> You can't see it, but your hypocrisy borders on insanity.
> 
> 19 killed by a lone madman and you want Constitutional Rights erased for all.
> 
> 400 million humans brutally murdered before birth, and you celebrate.
> Sickness and irrationality is a common theme among the Left..


It's never been about rights...it has always been about control.


----------



## martybegan

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> As I said in my first comment here, I support “the registration and issuance of highly vetted” concealed carry licenses. You may call that “reasonable gun control” if you like. The point is to weed out criminals, lunatics and emotionally prone-to-violence types, to make sure those who carry weapons know the relevant laws about when and where and what they can carry and use, etc. I support “Red Flag” laws like those already adopted successfully in FL.
> 
> By the way there is not much logic to your comment above. Even people who have *no common sense* are not necessarily people prone to lying. In fact there are situations where common sense requires one to lie. This isn’t one of them. Which of us has more “common sense” is … at the least very debatable.
> 
> This is a time in our nation’s history when common sense is sadly lacking. Not just in our politicians, but among our people too. We need much less self-righteous lunacy and hysteria on both sides, much less demagogy, much less mad party partisanship.



The thing is the places that don't want people to carry will place such onerous restrictions on the carry that the de facto bans will still exist.

In NYC it still takes 3-6 months and around $500 in fees just to keep a revolver in your own house or apartment. Can you imagine what the CCW requirements will be?


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> As I said in my first comment here, I support “the registration and issuance of highly vetted” concealed carry licenses. You may call that “reasonable gun control” if you like. The point is to weed out criminals, lunatics and emotionally prone-to-violence types, to make sure those who carry weapons know the relevant laws about when and where and what they can carry and use, etc. I support “Red Flag” laws like those already adopted successfully in FL.
> 
> By the way there is not much logic to your comment above. Even people who have *no common sense* are not necessarily people prone to lying. In fact there are situations where common sense requires one to lie. This isn’t one of them. Which of us has more “common sense” is … at the least very debatable.
> 
> This is a time in our nation’s history when common sense is sadly lacking. Not just in our politicians, but among our people too. We need much less self-righteous lunacy and hysteria on both sides, much less demagogy, much less mad party partisanship.



Your comment borders on abject stupidity.
Basically you just said (like so many twisted leftists do), that all violent criminals follow your laws to a "T" and register their guns.

How can you NOT see how utterly insane you sound?

CRIMINALS and the INSANELY VIOLENT don't give a fuck what laws you pass.  Laws only affect those who are already law abiding.
Your solutions and those of the Left generally offer NO solution at all.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

I am aware that local counties and cities are given wide discretion in New York to regulate hand guns in different ways, and that NYC in particular has historically chosen to set up obstacles tending to keep ordinary citizens from carrying them. This tradition in NYC has existed in many cities a very long time.

I lived in NYC for decades, and most of that time had absolutely no problem keeping a long rifle in my home for self-protection. Little, ultimately no registration required. Also for many years I had a semi-automatic pistol (no carry license)  — ultimately I decided it was too expensive to renew it every few years.

My job made me travel into many of NYC’s worst neighborhoods in the period when crime was highest in the 1970s.  I was in fact an activist working  to have gun laws changed. I also think the Supreme Court criticism of “may issue” wording is perfectly reasonable.

I was very active in the locally famous campaign to defend Robert Grimes (back in the 1980s). He was a black transit worker attacked by a professional criminal whom he shot & killed, using an unregistered pistol to defend himself at work. We ultimately won that case “in the greater interest of justice” — and this decent man and  pillar of his community was at least able to resign with his full pension.

I am aware of many sides of this “regulation” issue, which historically has been approached very differently in rural and urban settings. Of course I support the basic legal right of self defense. You probably know that many store owners have had legal carry licenses for years in NYC. My own brother did. Of course whenever crime becomes high enough, even liberal “anti-gun” people and pacifists will demand more cops and more guns for self protection.

But none of this makes me think that guns should be free to purchase without regulation, or that laws that aim to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals or just immature emotionally incompetent folks (we had many in NYC in my youth and I assume they still exist!) are incompatible with the Constitution. I already mentioned Florida’s “Red Flag” laws which even allow authorities to confiscate weapons in some cases where there are clear signs of danger or a threat to harm, but no formal crime has yet been committed. The law has worked well and even Republican law enforcement figures and politicians have come around to seeing it as a success.

Gun owners can “go crazy” like anybody else. Many who have been flagged have ended up very appreciative of the “time-outs” they were given by this law, when their guns were taken away legally and temporarily while they received help.

To martybegan: You may be right. I already pointed out that the *replacement* for the NY law the Supreme Court just disallowed will probably not be so radical as some hysterical liberals and some thrilled conservative “Constitutional carry” enthusiasts expect. We will have to wait and see what happens and proceed from there.


----------



## martybegan

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I am aware that local counties and cities are given wide discretion in New York to regulate hand guns in different ways, and that NYC in particular has historically chosen to set up obstacles tending to keep ordinary citizens from carrying them. This tradition in NYC has existed in many cities a very long time.
> 
> I lived in NYC for decades, and most of that time had absolutely no problem keeping a long rifle in my home for self-protection. Little, ultimately no registration required. Also for many years I had a semi-automatic pistol (no carry license)  — ultimately I decided it was too expensive to renew it every few years.
> 
> My job made me travel into many of NYC’s worst neighborhoods in the period when crime was highest in the 1970s.  I was in fact an activist working  to have gun laws changed. I also think the Supreme Court criticism of “may issue” wording is perfectly reasonable.
> 
> I was very active in the locally famous campaign to defend Robert Grimes (back in the late 1980s). He was a black transit worker attacked by a professional criminal whom he shot, using an unregistered pistol to defend himself at work. We ultimately won that case “in the greater interest of justice” — and this decent man and  pillar of his community was at least able to resign with his full pension.
> 
> I am aware of many sides of this “regulation” issue, which historically has been approached very differently in rural and urban settings. Of course I support the basic legal right of self defense. You probably know that many store owners have had legal carry licenses for years in NYC. My own brother did. Of course whenever crime becomes high enough, even liberal “anti-gun” people and pacifists will demand more cops and more guns for self protection.
> 
> But none of this makes me think that guns should be free to purchase without regulation, or that laws that aim to keep handguns out of the hands of criminals or just immature emotionally incompetent folks (we had many in NYC in my youth and I assume they still exist!) are incompatible with the Constitution. I already mentioned Florida’s “Red Flag” laws which even allow authorities to confiscate weapons in some cases where there were clear signs of danger or a threat to harm, but no formal crime had been committed. The law has worked well and even Republican law enforcement figures and politicians have come around to seeing it as a success.
> 
> Gun owners can “go crazy” like anybody else. Many who have been flagged have ended up very appreciative of the “time-outs” they were given by this law, when their guns were taken away legally and temporarily while they received help.
> 
> I already pointed out that the replacement for the NY law the Supreme Court disallowed will probably not be so radical as  some hysterical liberals, or some thrilled conservative free “Constitutional carry” enthusiasts, expect. We will have to wait and see what happens and how we proceed from here.



Who wants a long rifle for defense in an urban setting? I want to stop the guy breaking into my apartment, not blow away the guy two apartments over.

All I would want is probably a .38 snubbie, with hollow point loads so they don't go through any walls and hurt my neighbors if I had to shoot someone invading my apartment.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> I am aware that local counties and cities are given wide discretion in New York to regulate hand guns in different ways, and that NYC in particular has historically chosen to set up obstacles tending to keep ordinary citizens from carrying them. This tradition in NYC has existed in many cities a very long time.


This "tradition" was created to prevent minorities and immigrants from getting guns.
And, of course, it doesn't matter how long a law tramples on people's rights.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

martybegan said:


> Who wants a long rifle for defense in an urban setting? I want to stop the guy breaking into my apartment, not blow away the guy two apartments over.
> 
> All I would want is probably a .38 snubbie, with hollow point loads so they don't go through any walls and hurt my neighbors if I had to shoot someone invading my apartment.



Be advised that that .38 "snubbie" can miss the side of a barn at 3 ft.
All those stray .38 cal bullets could find one of the neighbors you are concerned about.


----------



## martybegan

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Be advised that that .38 "snubbie" can miss the side of a barn at 3 ft.
> All those stray .38 cal bullets could find one of the neighbors you are concerned about.



My apartment is only 10-15 feet wide by about 30-40 feet long. 

as long as I don't shoot through a window and use the proper round for urban/indoor defense the risk to my neighbors should be mitigated I would believe.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

The Left is paying dearly for it's wiling ignorance on human nature.
They create regulations and laws by the truckload in their areas, then get slaughtered by those who don't care about their laws.

Then they go soft on them since "they are under privileged and just need a job"
LOTS of Lefties getting slaughtered in Democrat areas.

I guess it's par for their course.  Darwinism.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

martybegan said:


> My apartment is only 10-15 feet wide by about 30-40 feet long.
> 
> as long as I don't shoot through a window and use the proper round for urban/indoor defense the risk to my neighbors should be mitigated I would believe.



It's a "snubbie" .38.
Trust me, hitting a moving target at that range with a .38 snub nose will require amazing skills
I had one.  I know how bad they can be.

But to each his own.
I would never use one to protect my family.
I call those "Gut Guns" cause you literally need to shove it point blank into someones gut before you pull the trigger to get a guaranteed hit.


----------



## martybegan

BasicHumanUnit said:


> It's a "snubbie" .38.
> Trust me, hitting a moving target at that range with a .38 snub nose will require amazing skills
> I had one.  I know how bad they can be.



So what would you recommend for small apartment home defense?

I want a round that goes in the perp and stops, and can be stopped by walls and such.


----------



## Blues Man

martybegan said:


> So what would you recommend for small apartment home defense?
> 
> I want a round that goes in the perp and stops, and can be stopped by walls and such.


Hollow points in any pistol caliber will do what you want.


----------



## woodwork201

basquebromance said:


> women are strong enough, they don't need "self-defense", wise guy


300000 women forcibly raped in the US in 2020, down from 500000 in 2019 because of Fauci Flu lockdowns.   And, of course, we all know that rape is seriously under reported in the US so the number is likely far higher.

And you, a man, get to tell women they aren't allowed to defend  themselves?  

Tell the truth, are you a rapist?  Is that why you want women to be easy targets?


----------



## woodwork201

Blues Man said:


> Hollow points in any pistol caliber will do what you want.


Mostly correct, but there can be exceptions. 

Also, a specialization on hollow points, frangible rounds, will  have an even better rate of not over penetrating and not passing through walls.


----------



## Blues Man

woodwork201 said:


> Mostly correct, but there can be exceptions.
> 
> Also, a specialization on hollow points, frangible rounds, will  have an even better rate of not over penetrating and not passing through walls.


 fair point.

Especially relevant for those living in apartments.


----------



## miketx

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Be advised that that .38 "snubbie" can miss the side of a barn at 3 ft.
> All those stray .38 cal bullets could find one of the neighbors you are concerned about.



I can put all five shots from my 357 Snubbie into a head sized target at 20 feet.


----------



## miketx

Lol, I followed a link about the gun crap being overturned to a fox "news" website. In one article some guy commenting on it claimed he just bought a 40 caliber Glock and three 7 round magazines for it. Lol


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> As I said in my first comment here, I support “the registration and issuance of highly vetted” concealed carry licenses. You may call that “reasonable gun control” if you like. The point is to weed out criminals, lunatics and emotionally prone-to-violence types, to make sure those who carry weapons know the relevant laws about when and where and what they can carry and use, etc. I support “Red Flag” laws like those already adopted successfully in FL.
> 
> By the way there is not much logic to your comment above. Even people who have *no common sense* are not necessarily people prone to lying. In fact there are situations where common sense requires one to lie. This isn’t one of them. Which of us has more “common sense” is … at the least very debatable.
> 
> This is a time in our nation’s history when common sense is sadly lacking. Not just in our politicians, but among our people too. We need much less self-righteous lunacy and hysteria on both sides, much less demagogy, much less mad party partisanship.


And you are the problem.


----------



## basquebromance




----------



## bigrebnc1775

basquebromance said:


>


----------



## miketx

bigrebnc1775 said:


> View attachment 661806


She had a right to sit up there?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

miketx said:


> She had a right to sit up there?


Yes she did.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

bigrebnc1775 said:


> View attachment 661806



Imagine you love guns AND you want to score "points" against the Left, but don't actually believe in anything but your own sense of martyrdom and sanctimoniousness!  THIS IS WHAT YOU DO!


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> I can put all five shots from my 357 Snubbie into a head sized target at 20 feet.



Wow!  That's impressive.

How many heads have you had to blow off?


----------



## miketx

B


bigrebnc1775 said:


> Yes she did.


Bullcrap, their ain't no right to sit in the front of a bus.


----------



## miketx

Uh oh, look at the story on the left....homos watch out...


----------



## ding

Good times.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Imagine you love guns AND you want to score "points" against the Left, but don't actually believe in anything but your own sense of martyrdom and sanctimoniousness!  THIS IS WHAT YOU DO!


Stop projecting because you shit stain do not know a damn thing about me.


----------



## ding

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Stop projecting because you shit stain do not know a damn thing about me.


I liked your point.  Rights don't have to be justified.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Stop projecting because you shit stain do not know a damn thing about me.



It was more "general" than just "you".   But you are a simpleton who doesn't read much so you don't understand that sort of phrase construction.

Why are you so uneducated?


----------



## NewsVine_Mariyam

martybegan said:


> It means they can't be denied a CCW just because the local government feels like it.
> 
> Now expect a long wait period coupled with onerous fees and training requirements.


In other words, no more "May Issue" (or "Nay Issue depending on your perspective :).  "SHALL Issue" is now the law of the land!


----------



## Stann

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Another one bites the dust.


Guns everywhere and women barefoot and pregnant, a hillbilly's dream.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Stann said:


> Guns everywhere and women barefoot and pregnant, a hillbilly's dream.


Are you saying women don't have a right to self-defense?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Cardinal Carminative said:


> It was more "general" than just "you".   But you are a simpleton who doesn't read much so you don't understand that sort of phrase construction.
> 
> Why are you so uneducated?


Talk about being a simpleton. You do realize every American citizens has the right to keep and bear arms? Just how uneducated do you have to be to not understand this?


----------



## Stann

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Are you saying women don't have a right to self-defense?


I'm condemning the Supreme Court's decision on Roe versus Wade, and saying having more guns in the mix is a recipe for disaster.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Stann said:


> I'm condemning the Supreme Court's decision on Roe versus Wade, and saying having more guns in the mix is a recipe for disaster.


What decision is that? Giving back the issue to the states? Having more guns on the streets lol. Stop pushing that failed bullshit ideology. More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means fewr victims at the hands of criminals. But you still believe that women are second class citizens who do not deserve the right to self-defense..


----------



## Stann

bigrebnc1775 said:


> What decision is that? Giving back the issue to the states? Having more guns on the streets lol. Stop pushing that failed bullshit ideology. More guns in the hands of law abiding citizens means fewr victims at the hands of criminals. But you still believe that women are second class citizens who do not deserve the right to self-defense..


I really hate to see people make the same mistakes over and over. Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember what life is like before 1973. The whole reason Roe versus Wade came into being was because some states had such egregious abortion laws women were killing themselves or trying to do self-abortions. Now even before Roe versus Wade was put to the wayside States like Texas and others started proclaiming even more egregious abortion laws. And a woman in Texas has already tried to do itself abortion on herself, nearly dying in the process. Then the state was going to charge her, but the public made such an outcry they did nothing. They caused this their stupid law. I'm sorry but you've been down this road before and it doesn't work. Just says you don't want to be told what to do or how to live the state doesn't have the right to do this to women. Don't even have control of your own body you are a second person. We are free Nation we do not have a fascist or totalitarian government, this should never be happening in America again. And as far as guns go, I don't care who has them, every study ever done concludes that the more guns they are the more gun injuries will occur.


----------



## Blues Man

Stann said:


> I'm condemning the Supreme Court's decision on Roe versus Wade, and saying having more guns in the mix is a recipe for disaster.


Guns have nothing to do with abortion


----------



## Stann

Blues Man said:


> Guns have nothing to do with abortion


They're all part of the agenda being pushed by the far right.


----------



## Blues Man

Stann said:


> They're all part of the agenda being pushed by the far right.


Just like gun control is part of the agenda pushed by the left.


----------



## Stann

Blues Man said:


> Just like gun control is part of the agenda pushed by the left.


Given the current crisis I would think everyone should be on board for gun safety legislation like the House and Senate just passed. It's a start in the right direction for a change.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

miketx said:


> I can put all five shots from my 357 Snubbie into a head sized target at 20 feet.



You may or may not be able to actually do that....and your "snubbie" may be made better than average or have a slightly longer barrel....and your skill level may be considerably higher than average.

But for most, that will not be the case.  Especially with low end short barrel .38 revolvers.   It is likely, however, that just the noise and possibility of being hit would turn most intruders towards an exit.

Almost any 9mm that holds more than 5 rounds would probably be a far better option than a entry level snub nose .38 revolver for home defense.


----------



## Flash

Let freedom reign

*ANJRPC Statement:*

*NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL
ISSUES DIRECTIVE REQUIRING
CARRY PERMIT APPLICATIONS
TO BE PROCESSED WITHOUT 
"JUSTIFIABLE NEED"*
June 24, 2022. At the close of business today, and in light of the Bruen decision, the New Jersey Attorney General issued a directive to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors mandating that NJ carry permit applications now be processed *WITHOUT *an applicant having to prove *"justifiable need."*

CLICK HERE to see a copy of the directive = https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/ag-Directive-2022-07_Directive Clarifying Requirements For Carrying Of Firearms In Public.pdf


The effect of this directive is to remove any doubt that the Bruen decision applies in New Jersey, and that someone applying for a concealed carry permit in the Garden State need only satisfy typical requirements, such as:

1.        Passing state-mandated background checks.
2.        Submitting three references.
3.        Satisfying the state-mandated training requirement for carry permits.

While Gov. Murphy has announced that he intends to try to limit carry in every way possible, whatever actions he tries to take will have to pass Constitutional muster under Bruen. Today's announcement by the Attorney General is nothing short of EARTH-SHAKING and represents the culmination of decades of incredibly difficult work by gun owners.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Stann said:


> Given the current crisis I would think everyone should be on board for gun safety legislation like the House and Senate just passed. It's a start in the right direction for a change.



The "crisis" is Democrat leadership, incompetence and division of America.

That's the main problem with you fools....you are so inept you cannot see the folly of your own ways due to extreme narcissism.


----------



## j-mac

Stann said:


> I really hate to see people make the same mistakes over and over. Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember what life is like before 1973. The whole reason Roe versus Wade came into being was because some states had such egregious abortion laws women were killing themselves or trying to do self-abortions. Now even before Roe versus Wade was put to the wayside States like Texas and others started proclaiming even more egregious abortion laws. And a woman in Texas has already tried to do itself abortion on herself, nearly dying in the process. Then the state was going to charge her, but the public made such an outcry they did nothing. They caused this their stupid law. I'm sorry but you've been down this road before and it doesn't work. Just says you don't want to be told what to do or how to live the state doesn't have the right to do this to women. Don't even have control of your own body you are a second person. We are free Nation we do not have a fascist or totalitarian government, this should never be happening in America again. And as far as guns go, I don't care who has them, every study ever done concludes that the more guns they are the more gun injuries will occur.


First off, this is not the 1970s…technology has advanced to the point where a pill after sex can ensure that gruesomely killing a baby, that feels pain in the womb is not necessary.

On your statement of gun injuries, grown adults don’t need you to parent them…


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

NewsVine_Mariyam said:


> In other words, no more "May Issue" (or "Nay Issue depending on your perspective :).  "SHALL Issue" is now the law of the land!



They will do as others have suggested and set up a permit desk with one person working it to serve 5 million people.
And that person will be on vacation 364 days of the year or out sick etc etc etc.

They will still find a way to circumvent any law they deem unfit.

The Supreme Court should have added that permits are not required for Constitutional RIGHTS


----------



## Blues Man

Stann said:


> Given the current crisis I would think everyone should be on board for gun safety legislation like the House and Senate just passed. It's a start in the right direction for a change.


It will do nothing and Red Flag laws should be the next thing brought to the Supreme Court


----------



## j-mac

Flash said:


> Let freedom reign
> 
> 
> 
> *ANJRPC Statement:*
> 
> *NJ ATTORNEY GENERAL
> ISSUES DIRECTIVE REQUIRING
> CARRY PERMIT APPLICATIONS
> TO BE PROCESSED WITHOUT
> "JUSTIFIABLE NEED"*
> June 24, 2022. At the close of business today, and in light of the Bruen decision, the New Jersey Attorney General issued a directive to law enforcement agencies and prosecutors mandating that NJ carry permit applications now be processed *WITHOUT *an applicant having to prove *"justifiable need."*
> 
> CLICK HERE to see a copy of the directive = https://www.nj.gov/oag/dcj/agguide/directives/ag-Directive-2022-07_Directive Clarifying Requirements For Carrying Of Firearms In Public.pdf
> 
> 
> The effect of this directive is to remove any doubt that the Bruen decision applies in New Jersey, and that someone applying for a concealed carry permit in the Garden State need only satisfy typical requirements, such as:
> 
> 1.        Passing state-mandated background checks.
> 2.        Submitting three references.
> 3.        Satisfying the state-mandated training requirement for carry permits.
> 
> While Gov. Murphy has announced that he intends to try to limit carry in every way possible, whatever actions he tries to take will have to pass Constitutional muster under Bruen. Today's announcement by the Attorney General is nothing short of EARTH-SHAKING and represents the culmination of decades of incredibly difficult work by gun owners.


He’s still afoul of the decision….passing background check, and completing training is all anyone should need.


----------



## miketx

BasicHumanUnit said:


> You may or may not be able to actually do that....and your "snubbie" may be made better than average or have a slightly longer barrel....and your skill level may be considerably higher than average.
> 
> But for most, that will not be the case.  Especially with low end short barrel .38 revolvers.   It is likely, however, that just the noise and possibility of being hit would turn most intruders towards an exit.
> 
> Almost any 9mm that holds more than 5 rounds would probably be a far better option than a entry level snub nose .38 revolver for home defense.


It's got a 2 inch and a quarter inch barrel. It's a 600 dollar Ruger 357. I can do it all day long. Spew your crap somewhere else. In other words, a Snubbie.


----------



## Flash

j-mac said:


> He’s still afoul of the decision….passing background check, and completing training is all anyone should need.


The next case should be one where onerous "shall issue" requirements are challenged.

There should be national Constitutional Carry with no background checks and no training.  No infringements or government permission to keep and bear arms.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

miketx said:


> It's got a 2 inch and a quarter inch barrel. It's a 600 dollar Ruger 357. I can do it all day long. Spew your crap somewhere else. In other words, a Snubbie.



Novice reply son.
Most people are wiser and probably are not going to spend $600 on a foolish pistol like you did. 
Unlike you, I have mine and maintain them meticulously but I don't orgasm over holding them or looking at them like you do.

Stop trying to act tuff and brag.  The other member asked what would be best for self defense...not bragging rights or false bravado.
If he wants to spend $600 on a 5 shot revolver because he's more comfortable with a revolver then I'm sure he will.

But for MOST, a low cost, 5 shot  snubbie is probably not the best choice for HOME DEFENSE.


----------



## BasicHumanUnit

Flash said:


> The next case should be one where onerous "shall issue" requirements are challenged.
> 
> There should be national Constitutional Carry with no background checks and no training.  No infringements or government permission to keep and bear arms.



100% agree.

There are laws that can be used against those deemed unfit to carry for solid, mental or past history reasons and the vast majority who are not criminals should not have to sacrifice their rights because of a few thugs.

A rare moment when the SCOTUS got it right (FINALLY)
I just think the SCOTUS should have gone one step further and made it clear that government issued permits are not required for a Constitutional Right.
Clearly bureaucrats will exploit that as they have proven time and time again and will continue to do so.

Besides, the thugs don't give a damn about their laws anyway and will be carrying.


----------



## miketx

BasicHumanUnit said:


> Novice reply son.
> Most people are wiser and probably are not going to spend $600 on a foolish pistol like you did.
> Unlike you, I have mine and maintain them meticulously but I don't orgasm over holding them or looking at them like you do.
> 
> Stop trying to act tuff and brag.  The other member asked what would be best for self defense...not bragging rights or false bravado.
> If he wants to spend $600 on a 5 shot revolver because he's more comfortable with a revolver then I'm sure he will.
> 
> But for MOST, a low cost, 5 shot  snubbie is probably not the best choice for HOME DEFENSE.


Dick head I never said it was for home defense. Bye commie.


----------



## basquebromance

It’s hard to not be overcome by the moral decay that is in our government.

However, the SCOTUS decisions released this week give millions of American hope!


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Talk about being a simpleton. You do realize every American citizens has the right to keep and bear arms? Just how uneducated do you have to be to not understand this?



Hey simp!  Good morning!  Sorry you couldn't follow the conversation.


----------



## miketx

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Stop projecting because you shit stain do not know a damn thing about me.


Why? You were doing it to me.


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Wow!  That's impressive.
> 
> How many heads have you had to blow off?


Brazillions.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> Brazillions.



That doesn't sound like much.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Stann said:


> They're all part of the agenda being pushed by the far right.


Guns have nothing to do with abortion.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

miketx said:


> Why? You were doing it to me.


I was? Don't believe I was responding to you nor is my comment link to you.


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> That doesn't sound like much.


You don't either.


----------



## miketx

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I was? Don't believe I was responding to you nor is my comment link to you.


Lol denial again.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> You don't either.



That was a joke, you dimwitted 'tard.

When you say "Brazilian" usually it means a type of shaving which removes a lot of hair.

Hence "It doesn't sound like much".

For god's sake learn to read and get humor, you dimwit.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

miketx said:


> Lol denial again.


You need to look up the meaning of denial my comment was not to you


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Stann said:


> I really hate to see people make the same mistakes over and over. Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember what life is like before 1973. The whole reason Roe versus Wade came into being was because some states had such egregious abortion laws women were killing themselves or trying to do self-abortions. Now even before Roe versus Wade was put to the wayside States like Texas and others started proclaiming even more egregious abortion laws. And a woman in Texas has already tried to do itself abortion on herself, nearly dying in the process. Then the state was going to charge her, but the public made such an outcry they did nothing. They caused this their stupid law. I'm sorry but you've been down this road before and it doesn't work. Just says you don't want to be told what to do or how to live the state doesn't have the right to do this to women. Don't even have control of your own body you are a second person. We are free Nation we do not have a fascist or totalitarian government, this should never be happening in America again. And as far as guns go, I don't care who has them, every study ever done concludes that the more guns they are the more gun injuries will occur.


Let's just nip this shit right here this thread is about guns not abortion.


----------



## Blues Man

Cardinal Carminative said:


> That was a joke, you dimwitted 'tard.
> 
> When you say "Brazilian" usually it means a type of shaving which removes a lot of hair.
> 
> Hence "It doesn't sound like much".
> 
> But you are TOO FUCKING STUPID because you are an uneducated fuck up.


Actually , Dimwit, a Brazilian hair removal is done by waxing not shaving


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Hey simp!  Good morning!  Sorry you couldn't follow the conversation.


The topic is about guns and you being a simpleton believe women do not have a right to self-defense.


----------



## miketx

bigrebnc1775 said:


> You need to look up the meaning of denial my comment was not to you


Deflection lol


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Blues Man said:


> Actually , Dimwit, a Brazilian hair removal is done by waxing not shaving



You get the point, fuck up.


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> That was a joke, you dimwitted 'tard.
> 
> When you say "Brazilian" usually it means a type of shaving which removes a lot of hair.
> 
> Hence "It doesn't sound like much".
> 
> For god's sake learn to read and get humor, you dimwit.


I know why it means, vermin.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

bigrebnc1775 said:


> The topic is about guns and you being a simpleton believe women do not have a right to self-defense.



Yeah, simp, that was what I meant.  LOL.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

miketx said:


> Deflection lol


Troll


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> I know why it means, vermin.



Usually people say "what it means".

Are you really mentally challenged?  Because if so I apologize.  I will act accordingly.  Again, my apologies.  I didn't realize.


----------



## Blues Man

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You get the point, fuck up.


You don't.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Yeah, simp, that was what I meant.  LOL.


Yes you meant women do not have a right to self-defense.


----------



## beagle9

TheGreatSatan said:


> Groomercrats are extremely racist.  You can tell by post like this.


Skews has done lost the debate or argument when you see him spouting crazy desperation post like that one. It's funny to watch... Can you imagine how screwed up the head's are of people like skews and his merry band of leftist minion's are here ? Look what they defend and support, and that tells anyone all they need to know about these shills.


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Usually people say "what it means".
> 
> Are you really mentally challenged?  Because if so I apologize.  I will act accordingly.  Again, my apologies.  I didn't realize.


Why you mean?


----------



## woodwork201

basquebromance said:


> 5 of the 6 conservative Supreme Court justices were appointed by a Republican Senate majority that won fewer votes than the Democrats
> 
> 3 of the 6 were nominated by a president who also won a minority of the popular vote
> 
> Remember that the real problem here is institutional


And, of course, you know why this is.  The founders intended it this way - that the big cities and states didn't just automatically create the government that ruled the smaller and more remote states.  Today, with our ever growing leftist, coastal, populations, the problem would be even worse.  5 states would tell the other 45 who would be president and what the laws would be.

Thus, the Founders very  intentionally set up a system where the States, and not the people, elect the president.  Initially, the states also appointed the Senate.  That was step number 2 in destroying the federation and replacing it with a national government, step number 1 being unapportioned income taxes.   The third and final step, turning states into nothing more than political districts, would be the repeal of the Electoral College.


----------



## beagle9

BlackSand said:


> .
> 
> If the only way Authoritarian Fascists can imagine continuing their constant assault on our Liberties is to expand the Supreme Court ...
> Maybe they need to understand that the sun is setting on their Unconstitutional Empire.
> 
> .​


They've gone way to far, and yes you are absolutely right.


----------



## woodwork201

skews13 said:


> Wait until every violent thug, and a fast growing Latino population are all carrying around these conservative white peoples neighborhoods, schools, and churches.
> 
> Oh, did I forget to mention the rather large, and growing Muslim population also? No?


Wow.  You're openly admitting that you want to keep guns out of the black, brown, and Muslim communities?  You're pretty racist, aren't you?

I want far more black people with guns.  I want every mother to have a gun in her home and to carry it outside.  I want black families to be able to defend themselves from criminals.

Same with brown people.  And though Muslims aren't highly targeted by criminals, I want their constitutional rights protected as well.  And I certainly want Muslim women to be able to protect themselves from rape, beatings, forced circumcision, etc.   But, you're a Democrat.  Democrats are the party of rape;  you hate women and most certainly do not want them to be able to protect themselves from rape.


----------



## beagle9

basquebromance said:


> enjoy, maniacs


Was these the types that Kyle was having to deal with that night, only that they succeeded in getting themselves dead ?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> Why you mean?



LOL.  Good one.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Yes you meant women do not have a right to self-defense.



I only agree with you because it is clear that no one in your world ever disagrees with you.

That's the lot of a toddler I suppose.

So, yes, little man, everyone agrees with you and thinks everything you say is accurate and true.  You are a good boy.  Do you need another trophy?


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I only agree with you because it is clear that no one in your world ever disagrees with you.
> 
> That's the lot of a toddler I suppose.
> 
> So, yes, little man, everyone agrees with you and thinks everything you say is accurate and true.  You are a good boy.  Do you need another trophy?


I know what you meant women don't have a right to self-defense.


----------



## Failzero

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Yeah, simp, that was what I meant.  LOL.


Far Left & Left Simps & Cucks need to
Up their Game ( Last night was pathetic )


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

bigrebnc1775 said:


> I know what you meant women don't have a right to self-defense.



Yes, widdle man!  You RIGHT!  You are ALWAYS RIGHT mommy's little man!

Everyone loves you!

Everyone thinks your points are just the smartest and best.

Here's your trophy.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

Failzero said:


> Far Left & Left Simps & Cucks need to
> Up their Game ( Last night was pathetic )



You guys are so "clever".  you see a word someone used against you and you think "I can simply turn it around and use it against them!!"

Try being original. If you can.


----------



## Failzero

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You guys are so "clever".  you see a word someone used against you and you think "I can simply turn it around and use it against them!!"
> 
> Try being original. If you can.


I can’t call them Kluxers or Militia


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Yes, widdle man!  You RIGHT!  You are ALWAYS RIGHT mommy's little man!
> 
> Everyone loves you!
> 
> Everyone thinks your points are just the smartest and best.
> 
> Here's your trophy.


Your retort has very little to change the fact that you don't believe a woman has the right to self-defense.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You guys are so "clever".  you see a word someone used against you and you think "I can simply turn it around and use it against them!!"
> 
> Try being original. If you can.


Oh you give reach around?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Your retort has very little to change the fact that you don't believe a woman has the right to self-defense.



I know you guys have a strong resistance toward the truth so I won't bother correcting your lie.

Enjoy it!

Enjoy being a LYING SACK OF EXCREMENT.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Oh you give reach around?



See?  Was that so hard to be "original"?  

You even made (barely) use of one of the terms I used in the post, so you are TRYING to be clever too!

Kudos!

See, even someone with as little education and high a Pb content in your blood as a child can still succeed when they try REAL HARD.


----------



## miketx




----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> View attachment 662267



So clearly you are OK with the ruling on the gun laws in NYC.

Are you equally pleased to see how settled law and a "right" are *easily eliminated by a single SCOTUS term with the Abortion decision?*

Does it give you pause to think maybe one of your favorite rights can be eliminated?  Sure it takes a bit more work, but remember, more than half of Americans are AGAINST THE OVERTURNING OF ROE.

Just a nice thing for you to think about.  (Might wanna go buy some more guns)


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> So clearly you are OK with the ruling on the gun laws in NYC.
> 
> Are you equally pleased to see how settled law and a "right" are *easily eliminated by a single SCOTUS term with the Abortion decision?*
> 
> Does it give you pause to think maybe one of your favorite rights can be eliminated?  Sure it takes a bit more work, but remember, more than half of Americans are AGAINST THE OVERTURNING OF ROE.
> 
> Just a nice thing for you to think about.  (Might wanna go buy some more guns)


There is no right to kill babies, ghoul. Now continue your latest meltdown. I love it. Show me where it says so in the constitution, ghoul.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I know you guys have a strong resistance toward the truth so I won't bother correcting your lie.
> 
> Enjoy it!
> 
> Enjoy being a LYING SACK OF EXCREMENT.


You have no truth sorry liar.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Cardinal Carminative said:


> See?  Was that so hard to be "original"?
> 
> You even made (barely) use of one of the terms I used in the post, so you are TRYING to be clever too!
> 
> Kudos!
> 
> See, even someone with as little education and high a Pb content in your blood as a child can still succeed when they try REAL HARD.


Weak very weak


----------



## miketx

Still waiting on the ghouls to show us where it mentions abortions in the constitution.


----------



## BlackSand

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Does it give you pause to think maybe one of your favorite rights can be eliminated? Sure it takes a bit more work, but remember, more than half of Americans are AGAINST THE OVERTURNING OF ROE.


.

If the People want Abortion to have the same protections the Second Amendment Provides firearm owners ...
All they need is a supermajority in the House and Senate and 38 states to agree.

If the People want Abortion to be a Defined Individual Right like those listed in the Bill of Rights ... Spell it out and get it ratified.
There is nothing the Supreme Court could do after that but uphold it.

.​


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> There is no right to kill babies, ghoul.



You will also notice that there is no right to "privacy" in the US Constitution.  Roe was a bulwark in helping to establish that "right" even though it is not enumerated anywhere in the Constitution.

But either way, it's OK with me.  Now that we know there is no bar against enforcing other people's body usage we can force immunizations in the next pandemic.

We can force medical procedures on ANYONE now!

Good to know.




miketx said:


> Now continue your latest meltdown. I love it.



Oh grow the fuck up you choad.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> Still waiting on the ghouls to show us where it mentions abortions in the constitution.



You aren't smart enough for this conversation.  Go play with your legos.


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You aren't smart enough for this conversation.  Go play with your legos.


Lol, so you got nothing like I knew. You can't show it cause it ain't there, ghoul.


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You will also notice that there is no right to "privacy" in the US Constitution.  Roe was a bulwark in helping to establish that "right" even though it is not enumerated anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> But either way, it's OK with me.  Now that we know there is no bar against enforcing other people's body usage we can force immunizations in the next pandemic.
> 
> We can force medical procedures on ANYONE now!
> 
> Good to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh grow the fuck up you choad.


Ghoul, nowhere does the constitution say anything about forcing medical procedures on anyone. Your meltdown and accompanying lies are glorious.


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You will also notice that there is no right to "privacy" in the US Constitution.  Roe was a bulwark in helping to establish that "right" even though it is not enumerated anywhere in the Constitution.
> 
> But either way, it's OK with me.  Now that we know there is no bar against enforcing other people's body usage we can force immunizations in the next pandemic.
> 
> We can force medical procedures on ANYONE now!
> 
> Good to know.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Oh grow the fuck up you choad.


Still waiting for you to show us, ghoul.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> Still waiting for you to show us, ghoul.



I never said there was a right to abortion in the Constitution.  But Roe established that it was unconstitutional to outright ban the practice.

As such for most of YOUR LIFE the US Government has said it is a RIGHT of women to have access to abortion services.

The interesting thing (you wouldn't understand it because you are exceptionally stupid) is that Roe also hinged on the IMPLIED right to "privacy".  In fact that has come up a lot in the conversations around Roe.  The US Constitution does NOT provide a right to privacy so it has been "inferred" in a number of cases.  Roe being one among them.

As such you would be interested to know that you may be opening a door here that you don't actually want opened.  But you are so short-sighted and blinkered by your general lack of education that you don't realize what has just happened and how it may very well, one day, come around to bite you.

Remember:  all your favorite justices who penned this decision *may very well have come close to LYING before Congress*.  I have no doubt they parsed their words closely.  Which is fun because they were effectively lying for God.  Especially Amy Barrett.  You know, Handmaid #675?  LOL.  

Settled Law doesn't mean much these days.  Maybe that will apply elsewhere?  We'll see.

For the meantime, though, enjoy your guns.  Because you are SOOOOO pro-life you have a gun.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> Ghoul, nowhere does the constitution say anything about forcing medical procedures on anyone. Your meltdown and accompanying lies are glorious.



You aren't very familiar with SCOTUS cases relating to this topic are you?  Jacobson v. Massachussetts ring any bells?  Yeah, I didn't think so.

Enjoy!  (I suspect Trumpoids like you have an opinion on this).


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You aren't very familiar with SCOTUS cases relating to this topic are you?  Jacobson v. Massachussetts ring any bells?  Yeah, I didn't think so.
> 
> Enjoy!  (I suspect Trumpoids like you have an opinion on this).


Hey liar, where in the CONSTITUTION does it say anything about abortion? THE CONSTITUTION LIAR!


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I never said there was a right to abortion in the Constitution.  But Roe established that it was unconstitutional to outright ban the practice.


Then there can't be any right to abortion and you're just a supporter of murder.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> Then there can't be any right to abortion and you're just a supporter of murder.



Screech as you must, Fundie.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> Hey liar, where in the CONSTITUTION does it say anything about abortion? THE CONSTITUTION LIAR!



What's a "Constitution Liar"?  Sounds pretty bad.


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> What's a "Constitution Liar"?  Sounds pretty bad.


Lol, the games you ghoul liars play.


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Screech as you must, Fundie.


Where's the right at butcher?


----------



## woodwork201

basquebromance said:


> This is far worse than our most f*cked up nightmare scenarios
> 
> We are royally screwed
> 
> Unless the Supreme Court is expanded, the U.S. as we knew it is over
> 
> This was Putin's master plan, he tapped into Republican's religious & guns fetishes & he has single handedly destroyed us


Because killing babies is the entire basis of our country.  If we can't kill babies then we are nothing.  In fact, if babies can be killed but any woman anywhere is denied the ability to kill her babie, this country is over.

This is worse than slavery, lynching, Jim Crow.  

Wow.  You're one sick puppy.


----------



## woodwork201

TemplarKormac said:


> Empty words. I've seen enough of your posting patterns here to know you just repeating the talking points of either side to gin up emotions in any particular thread or OP.
> 
> So, do you have any actual opinions of your own? Tell us what you truly believe.


I think he's from the membership team of Twitter, hoping to get some humans signed up before Musk backs out.  You can't read the full posts or the details of the conversations he posts without having a twitter account, which I would never have.


----------



## toobfreak

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Another one bites the dust.



Just too bad it took over a CENTURY to finally get the law repealed.


----------



## woodwork201

miketx said:


> View attachment 661332


Thanks for adding me to your signature.  I like knowing that with every post you let people know who and what you are.


----------



## woodwork201

Rye Catcher said:


> "Cry more??  Maybe if you weren't self centered and have an ounce of empathy, you along with the other sociopaths might consider common sense gun controls.
> 
> The issue of guns, as well as abortion, taxes and Green Energy Systems are all wedge issues, the Republican Party is reactionary, and uses wedge issues to gain the votes of single voters tp gain power.
> 
> The Democratic Party is progressive, looking forward to the future, not the past.  They know that guns kill innocent people every day, and our country has the most mass shootings of innocent people than any other developed nation.
> 
> The fact is, "shall not be infringed" is framed by ARMS.  Not guns, per se.  The Republicans,, solely to gain votes at the expense of horrific events, allowed the Brady Bill*** to sunset.



Do you not realize that the 1994 assault weapons ban didn't actually ban AR-15s?  Not only did every single AR-15 that was in place when the ban went into effect stay in the hands of Americans, millions more AR-15s were sold in America during the period the ban was in place and, yet, crime went down.

_*During the ban, a semi-automatic rifle like the AR-15 could legally have any one of the following features, as long as it didn’t have two or more of them: a folding stock (making the gun slightly easier to conceal), a pistol grip (making the weapon easier to hold and use), a bayonet mount, a flash suppressor (making it harder to see where shots are coming from), or a grenade launcher.*_​








						Guns Like The AR-15 Were Never Fully Banned
					

Omar Mateen, the Orlando shooter, used an AR-15-style semi-automatic rifle and a 9 mm semi-automatic pistol to kill 49 people at the Pulse nightclub Sunday. The…




					fivethirtyeight.com


----------



## woodwork201

Weatherman2020 said:


> I drink your tears like a fine wine.


You're going to get Monkey-Pox.


----------



## woodwork201

para bellum said:


> Time for national reciprocity now.



National reciprocity has been the law of the land since December 15, 1791.


----------



## woodwork201

progressive hunter said:


> Kavanaugh fucked that up with his input,,


Kavanaugh is a self-centered, self-righteous, SOB, no doubt, but what did he fuck up in this one?  Not doubting; I just don't know.


----------



## woodwork201

Weatherman2020 said:


> View attachment 661401


I gotta say it again; Gawd, I love that man.  Every time I see his face in a photo, a meme, even a leftist meme, on TV, or anywhere else, my heart swells.


----------



## woodwork201

Pellinore said:


> Yep, they sure did.  Struck it right down, inscribed now in the books as surely as _Brown v. Board_ or _Roe v. Wade._
> 
> Leftists, this is what it looks like to get outplayed.  There are more Democrats in this country than there are Republicans, and yet there hasn't been a liberal-leaning court since 1969.  Gerrymandering is dirty pool but effective; the right is doing it better than you, and it's probably going to cost you about another five or six House seats that you can't afford.  Democratic Presidential candidates have won the popular vote four times out of five since 2000, but Republicans have made sure the President count is even because they play the game better.  The most recent Republican President crammed through three young Supreme Court Justices in a single term, while Democrats have seated a total of six in the last half a century.  This is what it looks like to have your lunch eaten while you squabble about minutiae and insist on the perfect at the expense of the good.
> 
> Rightists, enjoy your happy time, because more people are going to get shot and killed because of this ruling. Statistics that you handwave away as Communist manipulation have shown over and over that having more guns results in more shootings and more deaths, but you cling to your Second Amendment absolutism so hard that the result is foreseeable. People in even more states will now be more likely to return fire when they should run away or blaze-of-glory their cubicle farm after they get a bad performance review. Police will also have fewer mechanisms to remove psychos from the streets, so by all means, enjoy your hardware collection and _Dirty Harry_ fever dreams, because your neighbors or possibly your family and friends are going to pay for it.
> 
> So well done, everyone; one more step toward us being an even more fragmented society.  Maybe this time we won't get off as lucky as we did the last two times it was this bad.


You're an idiot.  There hasn't been a conservative court until 2020. Even then, all of Trump's appointees have gone against what they say are their personal morals and beliefs just to try to make the MSM love them - which will never work unless they completely flip.

Remember Gorsuch saying the Court has no power to change the meanings of words in the law from when the law was created?  Then he changed the word sex to include gender?  Remember the photos, mysteriously disappeared since then, of him with his transsexual clerk being so happy that he protected homosexuals who choose their gender equally with people's sex which they didn't get to choose?


----------



## woodwork201

Missourian said:


> That will be the end of the democrat party, as we'll all be talking guns and getting to know each other while the leftist hide under their beds.
> 
> I have no idea what you have against Hispanics and Muslims but the only Latinos and Muslims or Whites or Black that I worry about carrying guns weren't waiting patiently for the Supreme Court to OK it.
> 
> But I have to say, your casual bigotry is very telling.


And any black, brown, or Muslim people that we might wish didn't have a gun will have one anyway - because those would be the criminals.  It's only the left that wants the law-abiding black, brown, and Muslim people stripped of their ability to protect themselves from the black, brown, and Muslim criminals who wish to harm us all.


----------



## woodwork201

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Brilliant comment!
> 
> Actually, the gun nut right and liberals both are probably exaggerating the scope and effect of this ruling … or at least I hope so. I expect that NY State and any others effected will manage a workaround. Are the registration and issuance of highly vetted “carry licenses” outlawed by this ruling? As I understand it (I could be wrong) the ruling is very broad but it mainly explicitly forbids authorities to ask that there be a specific reason for carrying. Thus it technically puts the burden on the state & police authorities to prove a specific person shouldn’t be issued one. Haven’t read the ruling, or seen sober reviews of its likely impact, and probably few here have either.
> 
> This Supreme Court ruling sure will make recruitment of police more difficult and expensive in big crowded cities! It will make their jobs *much harder*, too. Expect more dead cops, more regular Joes killed in bar fights and “road rage” disputes. If nobody is around, how easy to say: “the other guy drew first” or “I was just standing my ground.”
> 
> But there will be some saved lives too, I’m sure, and others (minorities especially) who really need to carry weapons for self defense in tough neighborhoods, will surely be saved from unfair and life-altering legal prosecutions just for carrying. Carrying a concealed gun certainly makes many of us … *feel*  safer, but whether in the end we will actually *be* safer as a result of this ruling, we will have to wait and see. I have my doubts.
> 
> By the way, I have a carry license (not in NY) and my vetting took many months, required two visits to the police department, fingerprinting, payment for “expenses,” and God knows what level of investigation. That is the minimum I expect will be implemented in states effected by this ruling.
> 
> I hope and expect they still can keep civilians carrying guns off of airplanes, out of courthouses … and keep guns away from the strong trigger-fingers of those who are about as intelligent as … embryos.



Wow.  You'd be a real embarrassment to your namesake if he were alive to read what you post.  You should change your name to Benedict Arnold if you want the name of someone from that period.


----------



## woodwork201

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Not at all. The real Thomas Paine had “Common Sense” and did not then carry a semi-automatic pistol … or a Stinger Missile or a bazooka either.
> 
> When necessary he carried a one-shot musket and defended his adopted country, attached to George Washington’s staff. His *real weapon* was his pen and his unwavering commitment to his vision of a democratic society, opposing all authoritarian assholes, and to basing society on the protection of the fundamental rights of men … even slaves and foreigners. He was an internationalist who took his pen and understanding of Human Rights to France, where he opposed *armed mobs* (along with his friend LaFayette) when they threatened the genuine gains of the Revolution there, even getting himself jailed and almost executed by those very mobs.
> 
> You have no idea what kind of man Thomas Paine was. He was a working man who hated the lies and superstitions of the clergy and religion, he defended women’s rights and urged money be spent to provide welfare to the old and orphans and public schools (that didn’t exist yet).
> 
> You are like the “Winter Soldiers” he criticized, who were quick to pick up a gun but slow to stand fast in difficult times, or perhaps more like the British oligarchy’s conservative supporters and well armed mercenaries.
> 
> Paine opposed the very creation of a Senate as an un-democratic feature of our Constitution … which he saw would probably ultimately serve the wealthy and factional interests. He thought it was reminiscent of the “House of Lords” in England. He would not hesitate to change the Constitution if it proved itself to be an obstacle to its basic aim of serving “the General Welfare” of the people.
> 
> The 2nd Amendment assumes a world in which a “well regulated militia” exists and is necessary. It does not assume a world where an oligarchy of one tenth of one percent of the rich own as much wealth as 40% or 50% of the citizenry, where they control two sh*t parties, Congress and the Supreme Court, where the people have been rendered so dumb they are ready to kill each other over idiot cultural issues, and destroy our once great country too.



The real Thomas Paine didn't make a fool of himself on the Internet either - yet here you are, Benedict.


----------



## theHawk

basquebromance said:


> women are strong enough, they don't need "self-defense", wise guy


Wow, you’d make a great rape counselor.


----------



## woodwork201

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Ah, when rightwing fanatics are confronted by honest criticism or even just reasonable differing views, when they are frustrated and don’t know how to answer intelligently … they *almost* *always* resort to insults.


The problem is your revisionist history.  You're trying to twist and destroy the truth of one of the often-referenced Founders and, I'm sure, there are others doing the same with other Founders.  You hope to convince people that the Founders were really progressives and didn't say what they said, write what they wrote.  Then you claim that what they did write and say actually support your leftist progressive agenda.  

That is why we'll always prove you wrong so whoever reads your lies will get the  truth with supporting links right behind your lie.


----------



## woodwork201

BasicHumanUnit said:


> You're right.
> 
> Requiring a 'Permit" for a RIGHT, from any size government (local or federal) is a way of saying "Fuck your rights, we'll control your rights anyway"
> A governments job should be enforcing RIGHTS and not legislating them from their own town halls and from their court benches.
> If We The People had any commitment to our freedom we would not tolerate anything less.
> 
> Since the Supreme Court did not specifically state in their opinion as such, NewYork and elsewhere will continue to circumvent the LAW by making the process of enjoying your RIGHTS as difficult and painful as possible.   Expect it to take years for NewYork bureaucrats to process your paperwork allowing you to exercise your "Rights", essentially continuing their "May Issue" policy
> 
> It will be up to individuals and organizations like GOA to sue them into submission.  However, no court in NewYork city jurisdiction will ever rule in favor of your right to carry.


What needs to happen, in my opinion, is a suit for an order that if the process isn't completed within 90 days of application then the application is automatically considered approved and the State must go to court, providing all of the protection of due process, before they can reverse it.


----------



## woodwork201

Stann said:


> I really hate to see people make the same mistakes over and over. Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember what life is like before 1973. The whole reason Roe versus Wade came into being was because some states had such egregious abortion laws women were killing themselves or trying to do self-abortions. Now even before Roe versus Wade was put to the wayside States like Texas and others started proclaiming even more egregious abortion laws. And a woman in Texas has already tried to do itself abortion on herself, nearly dying in the process. Then the state was going to charge her, but the public made such an outcry they did nothing. They caused this their stupid law. I'm sorry but you've been down this road before and it doesn't work. Just says you don't want to be told what to do or how to live the state doesn't have the right to do this to women. Don't even have control of your own body you are a second person. We are free Nation we do not have a fascist or totalitarian government, this should never be happening in America again. And as far as guns go, I don't care who has them, every study ever done concludes that the more guns they are the more gun injuries will occur.



Why would we care if a woman dies in the process of murdering her unborn child?  I'd be quite  happy to help them die.  Sell rusty coat hangers.. pull the lever on the gallows, pull the trigger in the firing squad, throw the switch on the electric chair, push the button on the gas chamber, inject the poison in the lethal injection... Of all the methods, hanging would be my favorite but I'd be happy to deliver the death penalty by any of the above.


----------



## woodwork201

Stann said:


> Given the current crisis I would think everyone should be on board for gun safety legislation like the House and Senate just passed. It's a start in the right direction for a change.


You would, of course, be wrong.  Nothing in the legislation passed would have prevented either shooting.


----------



## woodwork201

BasicHumanUnit said:


> They will do as others have suggested and set up a permit desk with one person working it to serve 5 million people.
> And that person will be on vacation 364 days of the year or out sick etc etc etc.
> 
> They will still find a way to circumvent any law they deem unfit.
> 
> The Supreme Court should have added that permits are not required for Constitutional RIGHTS


Unfortunately, most who claim to support the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution, including those on the Supreme Court - Scalia and Alito specifically, actually like gun control just fine, as long as it is the gun control they like.  They usually feel the same about other rights and restrictions in the Constitution as well.  As long as the Constitution is only violated in ways they like, they like it just fine.


----------



## woodwork201

j-mac said:


> He’s still afoul of the decision….passing background check, and completing training is all anyone should need.


Huh?  How do you get that?  How is three references any more unconstitutional than the other two requirements?  I agree that the references should not be required but neither should the other two and I'd like to understand why you think those are OK and references are not.

The constitutional thing to do would be to eliminate all three requirements.


----------



## woodwork201

Flash said:


> The next case should be one where onerous "shall issue" requirements are challenged.
> 
> There should be national Constitutional Carry with no background checks and no training.  No infringements or government permission to keep and bear arms.


You're suggesting that we need a law to make the States follow the Constitution?  I mean, isn't constitutional carry the law of the land already?  If they won't follow the Constitution what makes you think they'll follow a law that says the Constitution rules? 

Constitutional carry is the law of the land.  The Courts need to enforce it.


----------



## woodwork201

BasicHumanUnit said:


> 100% agree.
> 
> There are laws that can be used against those deemed unfit to carry for solid, mental or past history reasons and the vast majority who are not criminals should not have to sacrifice their rights because of a few thugs.
> 
> A rare moment when the SCOTUS got it right (FINALLY)
> I just think the SCOTUS should have gone one step further and made it clear that government issued permits are not required for a Constitutional Right.
> Clearly bureaucrats will exploit that as they have proven time and time again and will continue to do so.
> 
> Besides, the thugs don't give a damn about their laws anyway and will be carrying.


Constitutional carry is already the law of the land.  That's why you call it constitutional carry.

The only law we need is to permit suing personally, and the government agency they work for, along with fines and prison time, for any government worker who interferes with a person's rights - any of them but including the right to keep and bear arms.


----------



## woodwork201

miketx said:


> Hey liar, where in the CONSTITUTION does it say anything about abortion? THE CONSTITUTION LIAR!


Why in the fuck would you mention the Constitution?  You support gun control and that's explicitly forbidden in the Constitution.  You don't really have much to offer in discussions of the Constitution because you don't support it except when it pleases you.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

toobfreak said:


> Just too bad it took over a CENTURY to finally get the law repealed.


Next up the 1934 NFA. Abolish the ATF


----------



## beagle9

Cardinal Carminative said:


> So clearly you are OK with the ruling on the gun laws in NYC.
> 
> Are you equally pleased to see how settled law and a "right" are *easily eliminated by a single SCOTUS term with the Abortion decision?*
> 
> Does it give you pause to think maybe one of your favorite rights can be eliminated?  Sure it takes a bit more work, but remember, more than half of Americans are AGAINST THE OVERTURNING OF ROE.
> 
> Just a nice thing for you to think about.  (Might wanna go buy some more guns)


That half is being pumped up by the media or bad poles taken... It's not half.


----------



## Flash

woodwork201 said:


> The problem is your revisionist history.  You're trying to twist and destroy the truth of one of the often-referenced Founders and, I'm sure, there are others doing the same with other Founders.  You hope to convince people that the Founders were really progressives and didn't say what they said, write what they wrote.  Then you claim that what they did write and say actually support your leftist progressive agenda.
> 
> That is why we'll always prove you wrong so whoever reads your lies will get the  truth with supporting links right behind your lie.


Yea that uneducated Moon Bat does that revisionists history all the time.  He doesn't know his ass from a hole in the ground about what he is talking about 99% of the time.

If any of the Founding Fathers were around today and had a list of assholes that they wanted to kick their asses for distorting history he would probably make that list.

The Founding Fathers were Libertarians, including Tomas Paine, not bat shit crazy Libtards.  If they were around today they would be supporting Ron Paul not Joe Potatohead.

These Moon Bats don't know any more about History than they know about Economics, Biology, Climate Science, Ethics or the Constitution.


----------



## j-mac

woodwork201 said:


> Huh?  How do you get that?  How is three references any more unconstitutional than the other two requirements?  I agree that the references should not be required but neither should the other two and I'd like to understand why you think those are OK and references are not.
> 
> The constitutional thing to do would be to eliminate all three requirements.


Background checks shouldn’t be a problem if you are a law abiding citizen, and training is never a bad thing.


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> Why in the fuck would you mention the Constitution?  You support gun control and that's explicitly forbidden in the Constitution.  You don't really have much to offer in discussions of the Constitution because you don't support it except when it pleases you.


You're a two bit lying troll.


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> Thanks for adding me to your signature.  I like knowing that with every post you let people know who and what you are.


A blatant lie and it's maker needs to be seen.


----------



## miketx

j-mac said:


> Background checks shouldn’t be a problem if you are a law abiding citizen, and training is never a bad thing.


Already do background checks. What are you talking about?


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> You're going to get Monkey-Pox.


You only get that from butt sex, you should know that!


----------



## j-mac

miketx said:


> Already do background checks. What are you talking about?


We were discussing the press release from the NJ gov.


----------



## miketx

j-mac said:


> We were discussing the press release from the NJ gov.


You said background checks would be good but we already do background checks so again, what are you talking about?


----------



## j-mac

miketx said:


> You said background checks would be good but we already do background checks so again, what are you talking about?


The other poster was saying none of that should be required


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

beagle9 said:


> That half is being pumped up by the media or bad poles taken... It's not half.



I bet it's mostly made up of people who know the difference between the word "pole" and "poll".


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> Where's the right at butcher?



You know when you leave out commas (as you do ALL THE TIME) your posts end up looking like the ramblings of a brain damaged auto-complete program.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> Lol, the games you ghoul liars play.



ghoul liars?  You seem pretty amped up. 

But the thing is:  your side won!  Why can't you guys even be pleasant when you WIN?  You just like to bitch about stuff.


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> You know when you leave out commas (as you do ALL THE TIME) your posts end up looking like the ramblings of a brain damaged auto-complete program.


I knew that you would just spew more bs, it's what you vermin do. Show us the right.


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I bet it's mostly made up of people who know the difference between the word "pole" and "poll".


Leftist vermin always point out spelling and typos. Typical of liars with nothing.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> I knew that you would just spew more bs, it's what you vermin do. Show us the right.



We've already discussed this at length.  But apparently that's not your game is it?

Now learn some basic English grammar and move along.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> Leftist vermin always point out spelling and typos. Typical of liars with nothing.



Well, given your usual version of English grammar you would be in the know I suppose.


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> We've already discussed this at length.  But apparently that's not your game is it?
> 
> Now learn some basic English grammar and move along.


Stop lying, ghoul.


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Well, given your usual version of English grammar you would be in the know I suppose.


Stop lying, ghoul.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> Stop lying, ghoul.



Good use of the comma there!  Congrats!


Speaking of ghoulishness:  you missing pictures of kids mowed down by guns in schools?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> Stop lying, ghoul.



No, it's not a lie.  You dropped a LOT of commas and you sound like a moron.


----------



## Cellblock2429

basquebromance said:


> SCOTUS = More guns & less woman's rights


/-----/ What rights did women lose? They now have the right to carry concealed weapons to protect themselves from predator democrats looking to rape and rob them --- OH no wonder you're pissed.


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> No, it's not a lie.  You dropped a LOT of commas and you sound like a moron.


Ghoul says he can hear me.


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Good use of the comma there!  Congrats!
> 
> 
> Speaking of ghoulishness:  you missing pictures of kids mowed down by guns in schools?


How do guns do anything, liar?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> How do guns do anything, liar?



No, it's definitely the asshole with the gun who does something.  But the gun helps make that something much more devestating.

You scare me since it seems you don't have any gun safety training if you don't know how this all works.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> Ghoul says he can hear me.



Is this another autocomplete?


----------



## schmidlap

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Another one bites the dust.


Authoritarian statists are hellbent upon eradicating the personal freedom that most Americans embrace.

Emulating Iraq, Nicaragua, and El Salvador rather than advanced democracies is not a popular form of retrogression.


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> No, it's definitely the asshole with the gun who does something.  But the gun helps make that something much more devestating.
> 
> You scare me since it seems you don't have any gun safety training if you don't know how this all works.


You're simply a lying post.


----------



## progressive hunter

woodwork201 said:


> Kavanaugh is a self-centered, self-righteous, SOB, no doubt, but what did he fuck up in this one?  Not doubting; I just don't know.


he could have ended all permits and background checks but decided to shoot his mouth off and say this decision had nothing to do with state permits,,


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> You're simply a lying post.



So angry linear thought has escaped you?  I am now a "post"?  Woah...here I thought I was a person, and then a lying ghoul, now I'm a post?

I can't keep up with you.  Please calm down, relax, take some deep breaths, do some mindfulness meditation.

Then come back and we can talk.  Right now you are clearly so upset that you can't even type out rational sentences.

This is emotional for you isn't it?   Guns are winning and the fake "pro-life" stance gets to make an appearance as well.

Prolifers who love them so much Jesus they simply choose to ignore the things he said.


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> Thanks for adding me to your signature.  I like knowing that with every post you let people know who and what you are.


This just shows you how stupid this guy is. I quoted his ridiculous remark about me and here it is for you to see.

*"Actually, yes you are a lefty. An anti-gun, pro-gun-control, follow the government, the-government's-always-right-because-some-guy-in-a-black-robe-said-so kind of lefty sheep. - woodwork201"*


But lefties aren't following the government they are burning and looting and vandalizing all over. What an imbecile. Kinda makes his remarks even more stupid.


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> So angry linear thought has escaped you?  I am now a "post"?  Woah...here I thought I was a person, and then a lying ghoul, now I'm a post?
> 
> I can't keep up with you.  Please calm down, relax, take some deep breaths, do some mindfulness meditation.
> 
> Then come back and we can talk.  Right now you are clearly so upset that you can't even type out rational sentences.
> 
> This is emotional for you isn't it?   Guns are winning and the fake "pro-life" stance gets to make an appearance as well.
> 
> Prolifers who love them so much Jesus they simply choose to ignore the things he said.


Yep, a post, like the one you tie up a horse to. Just a dumb piece of wood. No value except to rot and then be burned.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> Yep, a post, like the one you tie up a horse to. Just a dumb piece of wood. No value except to rot and then be burned.



Either way you won with lots more guns.  Guns won!  Enjoy!  Take a victory lap!


And on top of that people get to play like they are "pro-life" too!  Guns and Fetuses!  That's all America really needs.

Why are you guys so unpleasant that you can't even enjoy your wins without attacking other people?


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

miketx said:


> But lefties aren't following the government they are burning and looting and vandalizing all over.




And you guys on the Right never do that, amirite?


----------



## miketx

Cardinal Carminative said:


> And you guys on the Right never do that, amirite?


Right liar, we don't.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

schmidlap said:


> Authoritarian statists are hellbent upon eradicating the personal freedom that most Americans embrace.
> 
> Emulating Iraq, Nicaragua, and El Salvador rather than advanced democracies is not a popular form of retrogression.
> 
> View attachment 662470
> View attachment 662471
> View attachment 662472​


Authoritarian always leads to gun control not a protected right.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

Cardinal Carminative said:


> And you guys on the Right never do that, amirite?


No we don't


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

woodwork201 said:


> Why would we care if a woman dies in the process of murdering her unborn child?  I'd be quite  happy to help them die.  Sell rusty coat hangers.. pull the lever on the gallows, pull the trigger in the firing squad, throw the switch on the electric chair, push the button on the gas chamber, inject the poison in the lethal injection... Of all the methods, hanging would be my favorite but I'd be happy to deliver the death penalty by any of the above.



_*This is a truly sick and ghoulish comment, made by a man apparently lacking a soul or moral compass, or any shred of humanity.*_

Like this comment …


> “Now, if we could just get a gun inside a woman's belly and teach the unborn baby to shoot to kill if their mother wants to kill them…” — Cougarbear



Woodwork’s comment evidences a bizarre connection between violent fantasies, rightwing gun fetishism, extremist anti-abortion views and “ghoulish” attitudes toward pregnant women. In both cases we see that these lunatics have no concern for real women, or for their future children either.

Almost a fourth of real American women — our sisters and daughters — make the difficult and often painful decision to have an abortion.  Decent men stand by their women when they get into trouble.

The sad hard truth is …
*“If men could have babies, abortion would be a sacrament.”*

Religious fanatics and ideologues like wordwork201 sometimes seek to hide their authoritarian and murderous impulses by pretending to be “libertarian” or by claiming respect for “small government” — but it is clear in this case we are dealing with an amoral nihilist who just wants *state laws *and *power* to control women’s bodies … even fantasizing about murdering pregnant women. These types want to *punish* women. They also want laws to jail or murder family planners and doctors who help women make their difficult decisions about when to bring children into the world.

Mothers being able to raise healthy children, waiting to create a loving environment with two mature parents to support them — this takes a back seat to such men’s violent fantasies and authoritarian impulses.

The creep woodwork201 claims to understand men like Thomas Paine — one of our most “enlightened” and “progressive” founding fathers. Do the quotes by him and Cougarbear sound even remotely like something Thomas Paine (or other prominent “Founding Fathers”) could have written more than two centuries ago?


----------



## woodwork201

j-mac said:


> Background checks shouldn’t be a problem if you are a law abiding citizen, and training is never a bad thing.


Do you support background checks for voting?  Background checks for protesting for or against the recent Supreme Court decisions?  Background checks before going to Church or before writing a letter to  your local Congressman?

Background checks are unconstitutional.  They mean that without the permission of the government you cannot exercise a constitutionally protected right.

Training is a good thing.  I've posted it before that we should have age-appropriate firearms safety training in all public schools.  But, once again, we don't require training to vote - and I certainly wish they could.  We don't require training to protest, to go to Church, to write a letter to your Congressman.

Just for the record, I also don't need permission from my neighbors to do any of those things so all three New Jersey requirements, background checks, training, references, are unconstitutional.


----------



## woodwork201

j-mac said:


> The other poster was saying none of that should be required


miketx likes background checks and banning some people from having guns.  He's a gun controller and is happy with the current state of gun control.


----------



## woodwork201

progressive hunter said:


> he could have ended all permits and background checks but decided to shoot his mouth off and say this decision had nothing to do with state permits,,


Kavanaugh makes Roberts seem reliably conservative...

Ok, maybe not exactly, but he's been so unreliable as a conservative, totally not sticking with the kinds of rulings that got him the appointment, going left to try to make the left love him after what they put him through in confirmation, that it is just very sad for our nation.  We deserve better.  Trump deserves better.


----------



## woodwork201

miketx said:


> This just shows you how stupid this guy is. I quoted his ridiculous remark about me and here it is for you to see.
> 
> *"Actually, yes you are a lefty. An anti-gun, pro-gun-control, follow the government, the-government's-always-right-because-some-guy-in-a-black-robe-said-so kind of lefty sheep. - woodwork201"*
> 
> 
> But lefties aren't following the government they are burning and looting and vandalizing all over. What an imbecile. Kinda makes his remarks even more stupid.


No, not all lefties are burning and looting.  And not all lefties support total gun bans; some, like you, want what they call "reasonable" gun control.  You want the gun control you like even if you don't want the gun control you don't like.  

You like guns, no doubt, but you are still a gun controller.  We often call people like you Fudds and you know why.  You may like guns but you most certainly do not support the 2nd Amendment.  You do not support or defend, "shall not be infringed".  You have absolutely posted that the government has the power to take away any right they wish from anyone they wish as long as it's by a court order. 

You're an anti-constitutional leftist posing as a gun lover.  We get that a lot, gun banners who tell us how much they love their .32 caliber revolver and support the right to keep and bear arms but just want reasonable gun control.... for the chil'ren donchaknow.


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> No, not all lefties are burning and looting.  And not all lefties support total gun bans; some, like you, want what they call "reasonable" gun control.  You want the gun control you like even if you don't want the gun control you don't like.
> 
> You like guns, no doubt, but you are still a gun controller.  We often call people like you Fudds and you know why.  You may like guns but you most certainly do not support the 2nd Amendment.  You do not support or defend, "shall not be infringed".  You have absolutely posted that the government has the power to take away any right they wish from anyone they wish as long as it's by a court order.
> 
> You're an anti-constitutional leftist posing as a gun lover.  We get that a lot, gun banners who tell us how much they love their .32 caliber revolver and support the right to keep and bear arms but just want reasonable gun control.... for the chil'ren donchaknow.


This moron lies non stop. I wonder how this imbecile came to his conclusions.


----------



## woodwork201

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> _*This is a truly sick and ghoulish comment, made by a man apparently lacking a soul or moral compass, or any shred of humanity.*_
> 
> Like this comment …
> 
> 
> Woodwork’s comment evidences a bizarre connection between violent fantasies, rightwing gun fetishism, extremist anti-abortion views and “ghoulish” attitudes toward pregnant women. In both cases we see that these lunatics have no concern for real women, or for their future children either.
> 
> Almost a fourth of real American women — our sisters and daughters — make the difficult and often painful decision to have an abortion.  Decent men stand by their women when they get into trouble.
> 
> The sad hard truth is …
> *“If men could have babies, abortion would be a sacrament.”*
> 
> Religious fanatics and ideologues like wordwork201 sometimes seek to hide their authoritarian and murderous impulses by pretending to be “libertarian” or by claiming respect for “small government” — but it is clear in this case we are dealing with an amoral nihilist who just wants *state laws *and *power* to control women’s bodies … even fantasizing about murdering pregnant women. These types want to *punish* women. They also want laws to jail or murder family planners and doctors who help women make their difficult decisions about when to bring children into the world.
> 
> Mothers being able to raise healthy children, waiting to create a loving environment with two mature parents to support them — this takes a back seat to such men’s violent fantasies and authoritarian impulses.
> 
> The creep woodwork201 claims to understand men like Thomas Paine — one of our most “enlightened” and “progressive” founding fathers. Do the quotes by him and Cougarbear sound even remotely like something Thomas Paine (or other prominent “Founding Fathers”) could have written more than two centuries ago?


Killing a baby, a feeling, heart-beating, human being by ripping their limbs off, one at a time, snipping the head from the spine, and sucking it out of the womb with a vacuum cleaner is just about as evil of a way to kill a person as is ever done to a born  human.  

I most certainly support the death penalty for the most atrocious of violent murders.  I support the death penalty for ripping babies apart, born or unborn.  The sick thing is that you do not.  Thomas Paine would have, Benedict.


----------



## miketx

schmidlap said:


> Authoritarian statists are hellbent upon eradicating the personal freedom that most Americans embrace.
> 
> Emulating Iraq, Nicaragua, and El Salvador rather than advanced democracies is not a popular form of retrogression.
> 
> View attachment 662470
> View attachment 662471
> View attachment 662472​


Fake news.


----------



## skews13

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Another one bites the dust.



Easy fix. The ruling says a special requirement is not needed to obtain a permit.

So simply don't give a reason.

Your application is denied. So sue me.

Next.


----------



## miketx

skews13 said:


> Easy fix. The ruling says a special requirement is not needed to obtain a permit.
> 
> So simply don't give a reason.
> 
> Your application is denied. So sue me.
> 
> Next.


Admits to being a rights violating commie. No surprise.


----------



## bigrebnc1775

skews13 said:


> Easy fix. The ruling says a special requirement is not needed to obtain a permit.
> 
> So simply don't give a reason.
> 
> Your application is denied. So sue me.
> 
> Next.


Can't be denied that is an infringement.


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> miketx likes background checks and banning some people from having guns.  He's a gun controller and is happy with the current state of gun control.


You're a lying bitch.


----------



## ding

Cardinal Carminative said:


> Either way you won with lots more guns. Guns won! Enjoy! Take a victory lap!  And on top of that people get to play like they are "pro-life" too! Guns and Fetuses! That's all America really needs.


I'm glad I got to witness your melt down.


----------



## woodwork201

miketx said:


> You're a lying bitch.


Does the due process clause of the 5th Amendment empower the government to take away the right to keep and bear arms from felons?


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> Does the due process clause of the 5th Amendment empower the government to take away the right to keep and bear arms from felons?


Beats me, liar, ask a lawyer.


----------



## Flash

schmidlap said:


> Authoritarian statists are hellbent upon eradicating the personal freedom that most Americans embrace.
> 
> Emulating Iraq, Nicaragua, and El Salvador rather than advanced democracies is not a popular form of retrogression.
> 
> View attachment 662470
> View attachment 662471
> View attachment 662472​


Are you suggesting that the Supreme Court determine the law based upon some stupid Internet poll of Moon Bats?  Because if you are then you a fucking moron.  It ain't done that way.

The only people that are impacted by abortion are the filthy ass bitches that think it is Jim Dandy to kill their child as a method of birth control.

Even most of them won't be because they live in one of the Communist states that will allow the infanticide.

If you want to do a real poll why don't you find some way to poll the children that are about to be killed?


----------



## woodwork201

miketx said:


> Beats me, liar, ask a lawyer.


Now you're lying.  You absolutely said it and you know it.  Now you're just covering up because you've been exposed.


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> Now you're lying.  You absolutely said it and you know it.  Now you're just covering up because you've been exposed.


Dude you lost your mind I never said that.


----------



## woodwork201

miketx said:


> Dude you lost your mind I never said that.


Yes you did.  M14Shooter said the same thing.  I called him out for the gun controller that he is and you jumped right in defending him and said he was right.  It will take some time but I'll find it.


----------



## ChemEngineer

Why are so many Democrats intent on murdering helpless, unborn babies, WITHOUT consent of the father much less the victim, but stuttering and slobbering over adults killed by guns?
*More Guns, Less Crime by John Lott, Jr. *documents the fact that guns save lives from armed criminals and psychos, which are more often than not Democrats.


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> Yes you did.  M14Shooter said the same thing.  I called him out for the gun controller that he is and you jumped right in defending him and said he was right.  It will take some time but I'll find it.


Never said shit about the 5th amendment, loon.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Flash said:


> The only people that are impacted by abortion are the filthy ass bitches that think it is Jim Dandy to kill their child as a method of birth control.


Well, here is another deranged misogynistic nutcase.

It’s fun watching these rightwing authoritarian lunatics accuse each other of being “leftists” (!) and therefore automatically “anti-gun” and “pro-government.”

There is no democratic “middle road” or “Common Sense” and no sense of honor (or tolerance) among these fanatics. Like their hero Trump, they are ultimately men of no conscience. Let’s hope they tear each other and their movement of “Great Lies” and little men apart — politically — before they manage to destroy the whole country.

As for the rest of us, we can only continue to seek reasonable compromises on all the cultural “wedge” issues used by demagogues to divide us.


----------



## Flash

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Well, here is another deranged misogynistic nutcase.
> 
> It’s fun watching these rightwing authoritarian lunatics accuse each other of being “leftists” (!) and therefore automatically “anti-gun” and “pro-government.”
> 
> There is no democratic “middle road” or “Common Sense” and no sense of honor (or tolerance) among these fanatics. Like their hero Trump, they are ultimately men of no conscience. Let’s hope they tear each other and their movement of “Great Lies” and little men apart — politically — before they manage to destroy the whole country.
> 
> As for the rest of us, we can only continue to seek reasonable compromises on all the cultural “wedge” issues used by demagogues to divide us.


It is despicable to watch these filthy ass Libtard bitches kill their child as a birth control method when a damn condom only cost 15 cents and you can get them free many places.  Just saying no doesn't cost anything.

The "rest of you" are low life morons.

Of course you Moon Bats don't know any more about Ethics than you know about History, Economics, Cilmate Science, Biology or the Constitution.


----------



## Death Angel

basquebromance said:


> The Supreme Court must be dismantled, rebuilt, and expanded to save the Constitution.


So, you're an.....



*INSURRECTIONIST!*
Why do you hate America?


----------



## ChemEngineer

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Well, here is another deranged misogynistic nutcase.
> 
> It’s fun watching these rightwing authoritarian lunatics accuse each other of being “leftists” (!) and therefore automatically “anti-gun” and “pro-government.”
> 
> There is no democratic “middle road” or “Common Sense” and no sense of honor (or tolerance) among these fanatics. Like their hero Trump, they are ultimately men of no conscience. Let’s hope they tear each other and their movement of “Great Lies” and little men apart — politically — before they manage to destroy the whole country.
> 
> As for the rest of us, we can only continue to seek reasonable compromises on all the cultural “wedge” issues used by demagogues to divide us.


Your chosen name is exactly the opposite of your Leftist blathering.  Our Founding Fathers cherished FREEDOM - a term with which you are hopelessly unfamiliar.

Your people and your grisly choices are exhibited here:

Democrat Insanity - Trump Derangement Syndrome

Bidenisms - Racism, ignorance, lies and incompetence
http://BarackObamaisms.blogspot.com
BarackObamaisms


----------



## woodwork201

woodwork201 said:


> miketx said:
> 
> 
> 
> Dude you lost your mind I never said that.
> 
> 
> 
> Yes you did.  M14Shooter said the same thing.  I called him out for the gun controller that he is and you jumped right in defending him and said he was right.  It will take some time but I'll find it.
Click to expand...

Here ya go - edit to add: readers should expand all the quote sections to get all of the context and the many times that M14 Shooter and miketx claim that any right can be stripped using due process.  Of course you're free to make up your own minds if it's true or not.



M14 Shooter said:


> You cannot infringe on a right someone does not have; not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
> Some people have had their right removed theough due process, as prescribed by the 5th Amendment.





miketx said:


> Are you that stupid? Do convicted felons get to keep and bear arms? No, they don't! They lost that right! Are you really that goddamned stupid that you think convicted felons can be armed legally?





miketx said:


> I never said give just anyone a gun.





SavannahMann said:


> The Second Amendment says just that.





miketx said:


> You're a liar like always. ALWAYS!






M14 Shooter said:


> If you can be deprived of your life, you can be deprived of all your rights.
> And, "liberty", in a sense only a slightly broader than "walking around freely", refers to your rights.



Like I said, here's M14 Shooter saying it and you liked the post.


M14 Shooter said:


> You cannot infringe on a right someone does not have; not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
> Some people have had their right removed theough due process, as prescribed by the 5th Amendment.







I've shown you making the same claim that the right to keep and bear arms can be stripped.  You agree with M14 Shooter that it can be stripped so once it's stripped you don't have the right so it can't be infringed..  

That's some very crazy logic to come around to stripping rights is not infringing on the right because you don't have the right because it was stripped and the 5th Amendment means any right can be stripped through due process, including the right to due process so they don't actually have to use due process to strip your rights because the right to due process was stripped...

Do you even get how ludicrous that sounds?


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> Here ya go - edit to add: readers should expand all the quote sections to get all of the context and the many times that M14 Shooter and miketx claim that any right can be stripped using due process.  Of course you're free to make up your own minds if it's true or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, here's M14 Shooter saying it and you liked the post.
> 
> View attachment 662700
> 
> I've shown you making the same claim that the right to keep and bear arms can be stripped.  You agree with M14 Shooter that it can be stripped so once it's stripped you don't have the right so it can't be infringed..
> 
> That's some very crazy logic to come around to stripping rights is not infringing on the right because you don't have the right because it was stripped and the 5th Amendment means any right can be stripped through due process, including the right to due process so they don't actually have to use due process to strip your rights because the right to due process was stripped...
> 
> Do you even get how ludicrous that sounds?


Good job idiot. Why do you want rapists and murders to have guns? But Like I said, I never said anything about the 5th amendment. So you go right ahead and continue your retarded witch hunt, you get more stupid each day. This guy wants violent criminals to have guns. What a patriot.

I'm coming for your guns!


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Sounds like we have another woman-hater here: it must have been all the talk of “bitches” that made ChemEngineer send his “love note” to the Confederate-flag-waving lunatic Flash . It certainly wasn’t any “knowledge of History, Economics, Cilmate Science, Biology or the Constitution.”

Utterly ignorant of the the responsibilities that freedom and citizenship demand, utterly intolerant of differences of opinion, these guys start fantasizing about guns and quickly move on to calling 1/4 of American women — sisters, wives and daughters who at one time or another choose not to bring an unwanted pregnancy to term — “bitches.”

“Guns and bitches” — a big theme also for black “gangster” culture, they are now a part of a new rabid white lumpen culture of idiots.

Of course “politics” is mainly just a cover for this sort, and screaming political insults is just an outlet for their anger and frustration. They insult “Democrats” and “RINOs” and each other — viciously but almost indiscriminately. Conservative bitches, Liberal bitches, Leftist bitches, fake libertarian bitches, and of course … “bitches” who simply see them for the losers they are.

Some of these losers are probably fat Incel types who no decent woman would touch with a ten-foot pole. Others are probably real bullies and, given half a chance, abusers. A sad bunch that real men and women find … repulsive.

The vast majority of supporters of both parties and our many independents *do*  care about our country and the political and social problems we face, but we can barely hear each other over the screaming of these ignoramuses.


----------



## Cougarbear

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> _*This is a truly sick and ghoulish comment, made by a man apparently lacking a soul or moral compass, or any shred of humanity.*_
> 
> Like this comment …
> 
> 
> Woodwork’s comment evidences a bizarre connection between violent fantasies, rightwing gun fetishism, extremist anti-abortion views and “ghoulish” attitudes toward pregnant women. In both cases we see that these lunatics have no concern for real women, or for their future children either.
> 
> Almost a fourth of real American women — our sisters and daughters — make the difficult and often painful decision to have an abortion.  Decent men stand by their women when they get into trouble.
> 
> The sad hard truth is …
> *“If men could have babies, abortion would be a sacrament.”*
> 
> Religious fanatics and ideologues like wordwork201 sometimes seek to hide their authoritarian and murderous impulses by pretending to be “libertarian” or by claiming respect for “small government” — but it is clear in this case we are dealing with an amoral nihilist who just wants *state laws *and *power* to control women’s bodies … even fantasizing about murdering pregnant women. These types want to *punish* women. They also want laws to jail or murder family planners and doctors who help women make their difficult decisions about when to bring children into the world.
> 
> Mothers being able to raise healthy children, waiting to create a loving environment with two mature parents to support them — this takes a back seat to such men’s violent fantasies and authoritarian impulses.
> 
> The creep woodwork201 claims to understand men like Thomas Paine — one of our most “enlightened” and “progressive” founding fathers. Do the quotes by him and Cougarbear sound even remotely like something Thomas Paine (or other prominent “Founding Fathers”) could have written more than two centuries ago?


You are so lost in all of this. 60 million unborn children have been blood thirsty killed because they were in the way. There is nothing more disgusting than that and that is mostly on Democrats. It's a sickness.


----------



## miketx

I've decided to start coming for your guns. Turn them in now to avoid late charges. Not kidding. 5th amendment.


----------



## woodwork201

miketx said:


> Good job idiot. Why do you want rapists and murders to have guns? But Like I said, I never said anything about the 5th amendment. So you go right ahead and continue your retarded witch hunt, you get more stupid each day. This guy wants violent criminals to have guns. What a patriot.
> 
> I'm coming for your guns!



First things, first.  You did say it.  There was a conversation that the 5th Amendment permitted the government to take any right.  You liked the post and followed up with your own impassioned statement that the government could strip the right to keep and bear arms from felons.  If not using the 5th Amendment, that you thanked in M14's post, then how did you mean?  Correct me by answering that question.

Next, it isn't a question of whether I want rapists and murderers to have guns.  I want rapists and murderers swinging at the end of a rope or, at a minimum, in prison for the rest of their lives.  That's how you deal with crime and criminals; you keep them out of society.  

Do you think that not having a gun stops a rapist?  Do you think a gun ban stops a murderer?  

It doesn't matter what I want.  I also don't want communists preaching the benefits of communism in America but, as a constitutional conservative and a patriot, I would give my life in defense of their right to say it.  

The Constitution is the Constitution and it says what it says.  It says, Shall not be infringed.  Whether you like it or not, that's what it says.

Passing laws to violate the Constitution because you think there's good that comes from it but really just pretend to help doesn't actually help a thing.  Remember they're rapists and murderers.  Are you so fucking stupid that you think a rapist would say, "I really want to rape that woman down the street but it's illegal to have a gun so I can't do it"?  Obviously you are that stupid.

If you support gun control that you like, even if you object to gun control that you don't like, then you are a gun controller.

If you support unconstitutional laws, even if it is because you believe (even if incorrectly) that it's for the greater good, then you oppose the Constitution.

You are an anti-Constitution gun-controller. It's OK.  People have the right to oppose the Constitution and to support "reasonable" gun control.  In fact they have the right to support total gun confiscations if they wanted to.  So just own what you are and who  you are.  

At least the socialists and Democrats are honest about their hatred for the Constitution and guns.  You should at least try to be as honest as are they.


----------



## beagle9

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I never said there was a right to abortion in the Constitution.  But Roe established that it was unconstitutional to outright ban the practice.
> 
> As such for most of YOUR LIFE the US Government has said it is a RIGHT of women to have access to abortion services.
> 
> The interesting thing (you wouldn't understand it because you are exceptionally stupid) is that Roe also hinged on the IMPLIED right to "privacy".  In fact that has come up a lot in the conversations around Roe.  The US Constitution does NOT provide a right to privacy so it has been "inferred" in a number of cases.  Roe being one among them.
> 
> As such you would be interested to know that you may be opening a door here that you don't actually want opened.  But you are so short-sighted and blinkered by your general lack of education that you don't realize what has just happened and how it may very well, one day, come around to bite you.
> 
> Remember:  all your favorite justices who penned this decision *may very well have come close to LYING before Congress*.  I have no doubt they parsed their words closely.  Which is fun because they were effectively lying for God.  Especially Amy Barrett.  You know, Handmaid #675?  LOL.
> 
> Settled Law doesn't mean much these days.  Maybe that will apply elsewhere?  We'll see.
> 
> For the meantime, though, enjoy your guns.  Because you are SOOOOO pro-life you have a gun.


Listen you, what you all have done is taken everything to damned far, and it's come back to bite you all in your ace, so no one is regretting seeing you all get your just desert's for acting like the most deranged people on earth. Education eh ??? If you are part of the Dimocrat party, then I wouldn't even mention that you have been educated, because how does someone so uneducated on life especially concerning matters or ethical and moral behaviour's in general, have any type of education or call it that ?


----------



## ChemEngineer

Guns are not made to use on innocent, helpless unborn babies. They are used to deter or kill dangerous predators, who have been increasingly released by Democrats to go out and do more evil. When the evil works of Democrats come back to bite them in the rear, Democrats invariably try to lie their way out of what was certain to follow to thinking people, Republicans.


----------



## beagle9

Cardinal Carminative said:


> I bet it's mostly made up of people who know the difference between the word "pole" and "poll".


Dam that Google spell correct... ROTFLMBO... Love the way it anticipates a word, and if you don't proof read afterwards oh well... You know what the statement meant or you couldn't have corrected me you ole spell check Nazi you.. lol


----------



## schmidlap

woodwork201 said:


> Background checks are unconstitutional.


Obviously, such an extremist, anarchistic claim is untrue.

Background checks are routinely conducted for private sector and government employment, housing, Class C driver licensing, etc. , etc., etc. Federal law requires that _all _states to implement state and federal criminal background checks that include fingerprints for child care providers. 

41 States require some form of background check for firearm purchases. Permissiveness in accruing personal arsenals  does not extend to homicidal crackpots.


----------



## schmidlap

ChemEngineer said:


> Guns are not made to use on innocent, helpless unborn babies.


Unfortunately, they are _eminently_ suitable for that application, depending on who is allowed to wield them.


----------



## C_Clayton_Jones

woodwork201 said:


> Background checks are unconstitutional.


This is a lie.

Background checks are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

Indeed, in _Bruen_, the Court reaffirmed the fact that requirement such as background checks are lawful:

‘Kavanaugh quoted at length from the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the court in _District of_ _Columbia v. Heller_, the 2008 opinion affirming the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. “[N]othing in our opinion,” Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions 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.”’









						In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law - SCOTUSblog
					

This article was updated on June 23 at 4:06 p.m. The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves. The 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, is the court’




					www.scotusblog.com


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

beagle9 said:


> Dam that Google spell correct... ROTFLMBO... Love the way it anticipates a word, and if you don't proof read afterwards oh well... You know what the statement meant or you couldn't have corrected me you ole spell check Nazi you.. lol



Nah, I was just having fun at your expense.  I actually figured it was a typo.  Just fun to do once in a while.


----------



## Cardinal Carminative

ChemEngineer said:


> Guns are not made to use on innocent, helpless unborn babies. They are used to deter or kill dangerous predators,



...and children
...and church goers
...and grocery shoppers
...and people watching movies.





ChemEngineer said:


> When the evil works of Democrats come back to bite them in the rear, Democrats invariably try to lie their way out of what was certain to follow to thinking people, Republicans.



"Thinking people"?  Of the amazing number of things you got wrong here this might be the most egregious.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

> *woodwork201 :*
> Background checks are unconstitutional.





C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> Background checks are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.
> 
> Indeed, in _Bruen_, the Court reaffirmed the fact that requirement such as background checks are lawful:
> 
> ‘Kavanaugh quoted at length from the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the court in _District of_ _Columbia v. Heller_, the 2008 opinion affirming the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. “[N]othing in our opinion,” Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions 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.”’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law - SCOTUSblog
> 
> 
> This article was updated on June 23 at 4:06 p.m. The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves. The 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, is the court’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scotusblog.com


THANK YOU C_Clayton_Jones !  At last a clear and concise report on the decision and dissents, with an objective presentation of some relevant history.

Your comment and the link clearly exposes the LIES and misrepresentations of lunatics like woodwork201 — who argue that “background checks are unconstitutional.”

Fools — and woman-haters — like woodwork201 want to permit the mentally deranged, abusers of women and criminals to assemble unlimited caches of *all types* of weapons (why not fully automatic weapons?) without any background checks. Their insane interpretations of the 2nd Amendment would of course outlaw registration and fingerprinting as widely practiced, thus hamstringing necessary anti-crime law enforcement efforts.

It makes you wonder if people like woodwork201 are fearful of background checks because they themselves are *not* a part of the “people” whose “right to bear arms” is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, but instead actually are part of the criminal class … who working people need police and courts and even guns to protect themselves *from*.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> As you say, you and the link clearly expose the LIES and madness of lunatics like woodwork201 who argue that “background checks are unconstitutional.”


Mostly because it is an easy argument to make.
if a police officer , without probable cause or reasonable suspicion, detains you while walking doen the street and restrains you while he then checks if you have outstanding earrants, he violates the constiution.
Background checks are no different


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

The argument that “background checks are unconstitutional” is “easy to make” only if one ignores reality, social and Constitutional history and “Common Sense.”

The comparison with walking down the street minding your own business and being stopped and harassed by police is artificial. One could say the same about debates about cops stopping motorists (disproportionately minorities) to ask for licenses, harass them, etc.

The proper analogy for “gun background checks” is the background checks given before drivers licenses are granted — which has nothing to do with “infringing” the right of “the people” to drive, but everything to do with protecting the public from drunks, or others who have lost their licenses for cause.


----------



## M14 Shooter

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> The argument that “background checks are unconstitutional” is “easy to make” only if one ignores reality, social and Constitutional history and “Common Sense.”
> The comparison with walking down the street minding your own business and being stopped and harassed by police is artificial


Demonstrate this to be true.


Tom Paine 1949 said:


> The proper analogy for “gun background checks” is the background checks given before drivers licenses are granted...


You do not have a right to drive on public roads..   You do have a right to own a gun.  Your analogy fails.


----------



## woodwork201

schmidlap said:


> Obviously, such an extremist, anarchistic claim is untrue.
> 
> Background checks are routinely conducted for private sector and government employment, housing, Class C driver licensing, etc. , etc., etc. Federal law requires that _all _states to implement state and federal criminal background checks that include fingerprints for child care providers.
> 
> 41 States require some form of background check for firearm purchases. Permissiveness in accruing personal arsenals  does not extend to homicidal crackpots.


My statement is neither extremist nor anarchist.  I'm a firm believer in the rule of law and in our Constitutional Republic - not the Constitution part of that.  

That private companies do background checks  does not have anything at all to do with the constitutional question of background checks to exercise a constitutionally protected right.  That the Federal Government requires background checks for things not protected by the Constitution has nothing to do with background checks for keeping and bearing arms.

I assume, based on your post, that you also want background checks to register to vote and again to vote, right?  Background checks before writing a letter to your Congressman?  In fact, background checks to get a  trial by jury or an attorney?

Because if the government can require a background check and then, based on the outcome of that check, take away your rights, why couldn't they, or wouldn't they, do it for every right in the Constitution or not in the Constitution?


----------



## woodwork201

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> Background checks are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.
> 
> Indeed, in _Bruen_, the Court reaffirmed the fact that requirement such as background checks are lawful:
> 
> ‘Kavanaugh quoted at length from the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the court in _District of_ _Columbia v. Heller_, the 2008 opinion affirming the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. “[N]othing in our opinion,” Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions 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.”’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law - SCOTUSblog
> 
> 
> This article was updated on June 23 at 4:06 p.m. The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves. The 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, is the court’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scotusblog.com



You're an idiot.  That the Supreme Court has never invalidated a thing does not make it constitutional or unconstitutional.

If Congress passed a bill, and the President signed it into law, saying that it was a crime for a person to advocate for a person with a uterus to have the ability to choose abortion, and that crime was punishable by hanging to be carried out the next morning, would that law be constitutional until the Court got around to overruling it?  Could we constitutionally hang a bunch of pro-choicers until the law was overruled?


----------



## woodwork201

C_Clayton_Jones said:


> This is a lie.
> 
> Background checks are perfectly Constitutional, having never been invalidated by the Supreme Court.
> 
> Indeed, in _Bruen_, the Court reaffirmed the fact that requirement such as background checks are lawful:
> 
> ‘Kavanaugh quoted at length from the late Justice Antonin Scalia’s opinion for the court in _District of_ _Columbia v. Heller_, the 2008 opinion affirming the right to keep a handgun in the home for self-defense. “[N]othing in our opinion,” Scalia wrote, “should be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions 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.”’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In 6-3 ruling, court strikes down New York's concealed-carry law - SCOTUSblog
> 
> 
> This article was updated on June 23 at 4:06 p.m. The Supreme Court on Thursday struck down a New York handgun-licensing law that required New Yorkers who want to carry a handgun in public to show a special need to defend themselves. The 6-3 ruling, written by Justice Clarence Thomas, is the court’
> 
> 
> 
> 
> www.scotusblog.com


Neither Kavanaugh nor Scalia ruled that those things were constitutional.  They said that the current decisions did not address the constitutionality of those issues just as overturning Roe and Casey did not overturn gay marriage.  

But, Scalia was wrong when he advocated in and out of the Court for gun control.  The Constitution is quite clear, saying "shall not be infringed".  

I'm glad to hear, though, that you'll be supporting the Court Dobbs decision because whatever the majority writes is absolute and, regardless of what the Constitution really says, is constitutional.


----------



## woodwork201

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> THANK YOU C_Clayton_Jones !  At last a clear and concise report on the decision and dissents, with an objective presentation of some relevant history.
> 
> Your comment and the link clearly exposes the LIES and misrepresentations of lunatics like woodwork201 — who argue that “background checks are unconstitutional.”
> 
> Fools — and woman-haters — like woodwork201 want to permit the mentally deranged, abusers of women and criminals to assemble unlimited caches of *all types* of weapons (why not fully automatic weapons?) without any background checks. Their insane interpretations of the 2nd Amendment would of course outlaw registration and fingerprinting as widely practiced, thus hamstringing necessary anti-crime law enforcement efforts.
> 
> It makes you wonder if people like woodwork201 are fearful of background checks because they themselves are *not* a part of the “people” whose “right to bear arms” is guaranteed by the 2nd Amendment, but instead actually are part of the criminal class … who working people need police and courts and even guns to protect themselves *from*.


Idiotic post.

I have many guns,several purchased in the past year.  I've been background checked many times.

And we all know the woman haters are the Democrats.  By definition, as you very well know and have been reminded many times, rapists and criminals don't obey the law - not laws against rape and not laws against having a gun.  Gun laws are useless except to disarm the law-abiding.  What you want is for women to be disarmed and easy targets for rapists.

Democrats are the party of rape.  Their leader, Joe Biden, is an accused rapist and they won't even investigate.  He's an accused child molester and they won't even investigate.

Democrats have destroyed title IX and women's sports.  They have infiltrated women's prisons with men and rapists.  They have opened the borders and invited millions of women and children to cross the southern border where 80% of them are raped or molested.  Do you understand that?  80% of the women and children crossing the border opened by Biden are raped or molested! 









						80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S.
					

80% Of Central American Women, Girls Are Raped Crossing Into The U.S.




					www.huffpost.com
				




And you want women in America disarmed? You are a woman hater, rapist protecting, piece of leftist shit.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

Yes, in South and Central America almost no women can legally terminate an abortion (even when raped). Irregardless of the gun situation in their country they are very often severely abused by “god worshipping” men in and outside their own families. No wonder many risk hell to get themselves and their children to the U.S.A.

I breath easier knowing the gun fanatic and obvious partisan demagogue  woodwork201 — who thinks even raped women should have no right to terminate pregnancy and who generalizes that Democrats and others who defend womens’ rights are “women haters” & “rapists” —  has been “background checked.”

Has his sanity or emotional stability been questioned? Is that why he has been checked “many times”? Let’s hope all those background checks weren’t as superficial as most usually are!


----------



## woodwork201

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> Yes, in South and Central America almost no women can legally terminate an abortion (even when raped). Irregardless of the gun situation in their country they are very often severely abused by “god worshipping” men in and outside their own families. No wonder many risk hell to get themselves and their children to the U.S.A.
> 
> I breath easier knowing the gun fanatic and obvious partisan demagogue  woodwork201 — who thinks even raped women should have no right to terminate pregnancy and who generalizes that Democrats and others who defend womens’ rights are “women haters” & “rapists” —  has been “background checked.”
> 
> Has his sanity or emotional stability been questioned? Is that why he has been checked “many times”? Let’s hope all those background checks weren’t as superficial as most usually are!



I'm very pro-choice.  Women should absolutely have the choice to say NO to sex.  If they get pregnant, they have the choice to have an abortion - just as soon as they get approval from the child they're about to kill.  You talk about women having no rights while you completely ignore the rights of the unborn - 50% of which would be women themselves, if not ripped apart, limb-by-limb, and their heads pulled from their spines, and then their tiny little bodies sucked out with the ol' Electrolux.


----------



## woodwork201

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> who thinks even raped women should have no right to terminate pregnancy and who generalizes that Democrats and others who defend womens’ rights are “women haters” & “rapists” —  has been “background checked.”


The only woman's right the left even pretends to protect is the right to kill their babies - which the Supreme Court and the Constitution agree is not a right.

You are women haters and rapists.  I already proved to you that a million or more women and children have been raped and/or molested on the southern border. How do you call that defending women's rights, rapist?


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

woodwork201 said:


> I'm very pro-choice.  Women should absolutely have the choice to say NO to sex.  If they get pregnant, they have the choice to have an abortion - just as soon as they get approval from the child they're about to kill.  You talk about women having no rights while you completely ignore the rights of the unborn - 50% of which would be women themselves, if not ripped apart, limb-by-limb, and their heads pulled from their spines, and then their tiny little bodies sucked out with the ol' Electrolux.



I repeat the obvious: woodwork201 is a lunatic woman hater who is against abortion even in the case of rape, who opposes even “day after pills” and who fantasizes about *killing women*  who choose to terminate an unwanted pregnancy. Here is more evidence of his sick mind at work:



> *woodwork201 said:*
> Why would we care if a woman dies in the process of murdering her unborn child? I'd be quite happy to help them die. Sell rusty coat hangers.. pull the lever on the gallows, pull the trigger in the firing squad, throw the switch on the electric chair, push the button on the gas chamber, inject the poison in the lethal injection... Of all the methods, hanging would be my favorite but I'd be happy to deliver the death penalty by any of the above.


----------



## basquebromance

Consistent with liberal psyches, the attack on the Supreme Court last week was completely schizophrenic --

     Thursday: HOW DARE YOU TAKE AWAY STATES' RIGHTS ON GUNS!

     Friday: HOW DARE YOU GIVE US STATES' RIGHTS ON ABORTION!

     [ANSWER: One’s in the Constitution, and one isn’t.]


----------



## skews13

bigrebnc1775 said:


> Can't be denied that is an infringement.



Sure they can. Just like that clerk in Kentucky denied permits to same sex couples.

You can go to court and sue them to get it,


----------



## Remodeling Maidiac

basquebromance said:


> SCOTUS = More guns & less woman's rights


Constitutional rulings = more jackasses like YOU whining like little petulant children


----------



## bigrebnc1775

skews13 said:


> Sure they can. Just like that clerk in Kentucky denied permits to same sex couples.
> 
> You can go to court and sue them to get it,


Wrong comparison. Right to self-defense vs a privilege.


----------



## beagle9

miketx said:


> You're a lying bitch.


Hell I think back ground check's are definitely needed always, and I definitely know folks that shouldn't ever have access to a gun. I guess I'm not for just anyone getting or having a gun, but I'm definitely for anyone who passes the smell test for getting a gun either for their own protection or for their hunting as is needed.


----------



## woodwork201

beagle9 said:


> Hell I think back ground check's are definitely needed always, and I definitely know folks that shouldn't ever have access to a gun. I guess I'm not for just anyone getting or having a gun, but I'm definitely for anyone who passes the smell test for getting a gun either for their own protection or for their hunting as is needed.



So you're definitely for gun control, as long as it is the gun control you like.  Got it.


----------



## beagle9

woodwork201 said:


> So you're definitely for gun control, as long as it is the gun control you like.  Got it.


We already have gun control, so what I don't like these days is how the left and businesses have exploited every loop hole and every crack in the wall in order to slip a lot of bad through those crack's in which is being exploited by some very unsavoury characters now, otherwise we are seeing the results of our non-enforcement freely sewing death and confusion amongst us as we've seen so much of lately......It either creates anarchy or it basically just makes a lot of profit off of these unsavoury characters, just as leftist government does when pimping the vote, so I've always been one to say "let's enforce the laws and rules we have on the book's again", and it's really just that simple. 

However with an environment like the one which has taken shape around us now, who even knows anymore what can work and what don't work these days ?? 

Let's put it this way, I'm in favor of enforcing the laws we have already, and I'm also for keeping guns out of the hands of criminal's, and especially from these gang's who are reeking havock in the communities and within our societies that we are trying to live peacefully within. 

Not sure who you are, but you aren't dealing with a fool here, so save your quick condemnation for a leftist.


----------



## woodwork201

beagle9 said:


> We already have gun control, so what I don't like these days is how the left and businesses have exploited every loop hole and every crack in the wall in order to slip a lot of bad through those crack's in which is being exploited by some very unsavoury characters now, otherwise we are seeing the results of our non-enforcement freely sewing death and confusion amongst us as we've seen so much of lately......It either creates anarchy or it basically just makes a lot of profit off of these unsavoury characters, just as leftist government does when pimping the vote, so I've always been one to say "let's enforce the laws and rules we have on the book's again", and it's really just that simple.
> 
> However with an environment like the one which has taken shape around us now, who even knows anymore what can work and what don't work these days ??
> 
> Let's put it this way, I'm in favor of enforcing the laws we have already, and I'm also for keeping guns out of the hands of criminal's, and especially from these gang's who are reeking havock in the communities and within our societies that we are trying to live peacefully within.
> 
> Not sure who you are, but you aren't dealing with a fool here, so save your quick condemnation for a leftist.


Leftists are honest about their intention to control, and even take for many of them, our guns.  It's Fudds like you that are the biggest traitors and the biggest threat to our liberty.  You enable the left by supporting the gun control that you like and pretending to object to that you don't like.  The enemy within is always a greater threat than the external enemy. 

Just what gun control law is it that you think should be stopping criminal gangs in big cities from having guns?  Guess what?  Whichever law you think it is, that you love so much, it ain't fucking working, traitor.


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> Leftists are honest about their intention to control, and even take for many of them, our guns.  It's Fudds like you that are the biggest traitors and the biggest threat to our liberty.  You enable the left by supporting the gun control that you like and pretending to object to that you don't like.  The enemy within is always a greater threat than the external enemy.
> 
> Just what gun control law is it that you think should be stopping criminal gangs in big cities from having guns?  Guess what?  Whichever law you think it is, that you love so much, it ain't fucking working, traitor.


Man, you're a real piece of shit aren't you?


----------



## woodwork201

miketx said:


> Man, you're a real piece of shit aren't you?


Says one of the other gun controllers... No; I'm a constitutionalist who loves  his country and the Constitution that created it. I'm a patriot and a libertarian in the classic sense: I treasure and defend my rights from attacks by anyone, including you, beagle9, and m14 shooter.


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> Says one of the other gun controllers... No; I'm a constitutionalist who loves  his country and the Constitution that created it. I'm a patriot and a libertarian in the classic sense: I treasure and defend my rights from attacks by anyone, including you, beagle9, and m14 shooter.


Lying sob to boot. No one has attacked your rights ya lying sob.


----------



## miketx

skews13 said:


> Sure they can. Just like that clerk in Kentucky denied permits to same sex couples.
> 
> You can go to court and sue them to get it,


If you move to California you can marry your man.


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> So you're definitely for gun control, as long as it is the gun control you like.  Got it.


What a liar you are. Man go somewhere else ya lying troll.


----------



## woodwork201

miketx said:


> Lying sob to boot. No one has attacked your rights ya lying sob.


Yes you have.  You defend the government's right to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms and other rights.   You're all three gun controllers.

I've reposted all of your posts before.  You can keep denying them but the server keeps those posts.   You could go back and delete them but since I've reposted them the text will remain.


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> Yes you have.  You defend the government's right to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms and other rights.   You're all three gun controllers.
> 
> I've reposted all of your posts before.  You can keep denying them but the server keeps those posts.   You could go back and delete them but since I've reposted them the text will remain.


Keep lying you filthy pos.


----------



## beagle9

woodwork201 said:


> Leftists are honest about their intention to control, and even take for many of them, our guns.  It's Fudds like you that are the biggest traitors and the biggest threat to our liberty.  You enable the left by supporting the gun control that you like and pretending to object to that you don't like.  The enemy within is always a greater threat than the external enemy.
> 
> Just what gun control law is it that you think should be stopping criminal gangs in big cities from having guns?  Guess what?  Whichever law you think it is, that you love so much, it ain't fucking working, traitor.


Your attitude on just allowing what doesn't work to keep on growing without checking the situations is about as idiot or stupid as it gets. No one is advocating the restrictions on guns from law abiding citizen's, well at least not in my area of the nation we aren't....... 

Your emotional Karen bull crap isn't fooling anyone, and sticking with the status quo of not dealing with criminal's with gun's no matter how many die isn't going to cut it for the responsible gun owner community. It has to be turned around, but I understand your fear on who is running the country right now. I'm definitely with you that they couldn't run a lemonade stand, and we sure don't need them changing our gun law's that are already in place.

Now hear me good you emotional hack, I am in favor of strong background checks not red flag law's, and I'm in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of known or found to be criminal's through the background checks, but I'm not in favor of taking guns from law abiding citizen's, otherwise I'm against making it hard on law abiding citizen's to own and have the gun's of their choosing. 

I'm for proper storage that keep people from easy access to guns during a break in, otherwise to one's home or automobile where a gun might be hap-hazzardly stored. I'm for common sense being shown by those owning weapon's for example: not bragging about them, not showing them off as if that makes them look tough or something to their friends or neighbors, and not discharging them in communities in hopes to send messages that hey I'm armed, so don't mess with me. That's just an advertisement to say hey I got gun's, so come see if you can get them. I'm big time in favor of concealed carry, not open carry because like I said that's just an advertisement to a criminal that you are armed in which tells the criminal how to counter that carry if need be.

Intimidation doesn't work on criminal's these days. They are a different Godless breed hell bent on shoving every good that we ever believed in down our throats like a bitter pill. So we must adapt to keep our ways of life intact. If they pull this, then we counter with that, but to sit there and do nothing or rather if we don't meet them on the battlefield of wit's, then it is a fool's game that we are playing.


----------



## beagle9

miketx said:


> Keep lying you filthy pos.


Yeah he's full of it, so I'm not sure about this poster. He might be trolling for the sake of argument, and if he keeps it up he will be reported.


----------



## miketx

beagle9 said:


> Yeah he's full of it, so I'm not sure about this poster. He might be trolling for the sake of argument, and if he keeps it up he will be reported.


Hope gets hit by lightening.


----------



## woodwork201

beagle9 said:


> Your attitude on just allowing what doesn't work to keep on growing without checking the situations is about as idiot or stupid as it gets. No one is advocating the restrictions on guns from law abiding citizen's, well at least not in my area of the nation we aren't.......
> 
> Your emotional Karen bull crap isn't fooling anyone, and sticking with the status quo of not dealing with criminal's with gun's no matter how many die isn't going to cut it for the responsible gun owner community. It has to be turned around, but I understand your fear on who is running the country right now. I'm definitely with you that they couldn't run a lemonade stand, and we sure don't need them changing our gun law's that are already in place.
> 
> Now hear me good you emotional hack, I am in favor of strong background checks not red flag law's, and I'm in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of known or found to be criminal's through the background checks, but I'm not in favor of taking guns from law abiding citizen's, otherwise I'm against making it hard on law abiding citizen's to own and have the gun's of their choosing.
> 
> I'm for proper storage that keep people from easy access to guns during a break in, otherwise to one's home or automobile where a gun might be hap-hazzardly stored. I'm for common sense being shown by those owning weapon's for example: not bragging about them, not showing them off as if that makes them look tough or something to their friends or neighbors, and not discharging them in communities in hopes to send messages that hey I'm armed, so don't mess with me. That's just an advertisement to say hey I got gun's, so come see if you can get them. I'm big time in favor of concealed carry, not open carry because like I said that's just an advertisement to a criminal that you are armed in which tells the criminal how to counter that carry if need be.
> 
> Intimidation doesn't work on criminal's these days. They are a different Godless breed hell bent on shoving every good that we ever believed in down our throats like a bitter pill. So we must adapt to keep our ways of life intact. If they pull this, then we counter with that, but to sit there and do nothing or rather if we don't meet them on the battlefield of wit's, then it is a fool's game that we are playing.



So you're in favor of gun control that doesn't work to keep law breakers from having guns but might keep law abiding from having guns.  You're in favor of gun registration which allows the government to get the guns, as historically proven many times.

You're in favor of what you consider to be reasonable gun control - all of which has been absolutely proven to NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Wonder why that is?  It's because they're criminals; they don't care about the law. Why are you too dense to understand that?  Were you dropped on the head as a child?  Got too close to the batter in a baseball game?  What happened?

Your suggestion of adapting to the times to keep the criminals at bay apparently includes not following the Constitution.  When you agree that the Government is allowed to operate outside the Constitution in one thing, then you must certainly agree that they can violate the Constitution in any thing they wish; do you not?  If not, explain which parts they can violate and which parts they cannot and how we tell them apart.

You're an anti-Constitution, anti-2nd Amendment, gun controller.  Oh, sure, you like your guns and even the right for some people to keep and bear some arms, if they first get government permission, but you can't claim to support the 2nd Amendment unless you support the part that says, "shall not be infringed" and you can't claim to defend the Constitution unless you support the 2nd Amendment.


----------



## woodwork201

beagle9 said:


> Yeah he's full of it, so I'm not sure about this poster. He might be trolling for the sake of argument, and if he keeps it up he will be reported.


Report me, gun controller.


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> So you're in favor of gun control that doesn't work to keep law breakers from having guns but might keep law abiding from having guns.  You're in favor of gun registration which allows the government to get the guns, as historically proven many times.
> 
> You're in favor of what you consider to be reasonable gun control - all of which has been absolutely proven to NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Wonder why that is?  It's because they're criminals; they don't care about the law. Why are you too dense to understand that?  Were you dropped on the head as a child?  Got too close to the batter in a baseball game?  What happened?
> 
> Your suggestion of adapting to the times to keep the criminals at bay apparently includes not following the Constitution.  When you agree that the Government is allowed to operate outside the Constitution in one thing, then you must certainly agree that they can violate the Constitution in any thing they wish; do you not?  If not, explain which parts they can violate and which parts they cannot and how we tell them apart.
> 
> You're an anti-Constitution, anti-2nd Amendment, gun controller.  Oh, sure, you like your guns and even the right for some people to keep and bear some arms, if they first get government permission, but you can't claim to support the 2nd Amendment unless you support the part that says, "shall not be infringed" and you can't claim to defend the Constitution unless you support the 2nd Amendment.


Damn you're a lying pos aren't you? Is your boyfriend a democrat too?


----------



## woodwork201

miketx said:


> Damn you're a lying pos aren't you? Is your boyfriend a democrat too?


Here's the proof, once again, that I posted in another thread that you and M14 Shooter are gun controllers.  

It's OK to support gun control - if you do it honestly.  That can be a difference of opinion.  But when you pretend to support the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution when you actually support neither is just a lie:

Here ya go - edit to add: readers should expand all the quote sections to get all of the context and the many times that M14 Shooter and miketx claim that any right can be stripped using due process.  Of course you're free to make up your own minds if it's true or not.


M14 Shooter said:


> You cannot infringe on a right someone does not have; not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
> Some people have had their right removed theough due process, as prescribed by the 5th Amendment.





miketx said:


> Are you that stupid? Do convicted felons get to keep and bear arms? No, they don't! They lost that right! Are you really that goddamned stupid that you think convicted felons can be armed legally?





miketx said:


> I never said give just anyone a gun.





SavannahMann said:


> The Second Amendment says just that.





miketx said:


> You're a liar like always. ALWAYS!





M14 Shooter said:


> If you can be deprived of your life, you can be deprived of all your rights.
> And, "liberty", in a sense only a slightly broader than "walking around freely", refers to your rights.



Like I said, here's M14 Shooter saying it and you liked the post.


M14 Shooter said:


> You cannot infringe on a right someone does not have; not everyone has the right to keep and bear arms.
> Some people have had their right removed theough due process, as prescribed by the 5th Amendment.


 






I've shown you making the same claim that the right to keep and bear arms can be stripped.  You agree with M14 Shooter that it can be stripped so once it's stripped you don't have the right so it can't be infringed..  
That's some very crazy logic to come around to stripping rights is not infringing on the right because you don't have the right because it was stripped and the 5th Amendment means any right can be stripped through due process, including the right to due process so they don't actually have to use due process to strip your rights because the right to due process was stripped...
Do you even get how ludicrous that sounds?


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> Here's the proof, once again, that I posted in another thread that you and M14 Shooter are gun controllers.
> 
> It's OK to support gun control - if you do it honestly.  That can be a difference of opinion.  But when you pretend to support the 2nd Amendment and the Constitution when you actually support neither is just a lie:
> 
> Here ya go - edit to add: readers should expand all the quote sections to get all of the context and the many times that M14 Shooter and miketx claim that any right can be stripped using due process.  Of course you're free to make up your own minds if it's true or not.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Like I said, here's M14 Shooter saying it and you liked the post.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I've shown you making the same claim that the right to keep and bear arms can be stripped.  You agree with M14 Shooter that it can be stripped so once it's stripped you don't have the right so it can't be infringed..
> That's some very crazy logic to come around to stripping rights is not infringing on the right because you don't have the right because it was stripped and the 5th Amendment means any right can be stripped through due process, including the right to due process so they don't actually have to use due process to strip your rights because the right to due process was stripped...
> Do you even get how ludicrous that sounds?


Here we have a democrat who wants murderers and rapists that are released from prison to have guns. Funny how the mind of a crime lover works.


----------



## PoliticalChic

woodwork201 said:


> So you're in favor of gun control that doesn't work to keep law breakers from having guns but might keep law abiding from having guns.  You're in favor of gun registration which allows the government to get the guns, as historically proven many times.
> 
> You're in favor of what you consider to be reasonable gun control - all of which has been absolutely proven to NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Wonder why that is?  It's because they're criminals; they don't care about the law. Why are you too dense to understand that?  Were you dropped on the head as a child?  Got too close to the batter in a baseball game?  What happened?
> 
> Your suggestion of adapting to the times to keep the criminals at bay apparently includes not following the Constitution.  When you agree that the Government is allowed to operate outside the Constitution in one thing, then you must certainly agree that they can violate the Constitution in any thing they wish; do you not?  If not, explain which parts they can violate and which parts they cannot and how we tell them apart.
> 
> You're an anti-Constitution, anti-2nd Amendment, gun controller.  Oh, sure, you like your guns and even the right for some people to keep and bear some arms, if they first get government permission, but you can't claim to support the 2nd Amendment unless you support the part that says, "shall not be infringed" and you can't claim to defend the Constitution unless you support the 2nd Amendment.




Licensed gun owners are the single most law-abiding Americans.

Example:

Permit holders are extremely law abiding. They would lose their permits for any weapons-related infraction. It doesn’t happen
Example: “Of the 51,078 permits that have been issued by the state since the law took effect in 2007, 44 permit holders have been charged with a crime while using a firearm through late October, according to records provided by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.”
http://www.kansas.com/news/article1103132.html
http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html (* .00086%)*


----------



## miketx

PoliticalChic said:


> Licensed gun owners are the single most law-abiding Americans.
> 
> Example:
> 
> Permit holders are extremely law abiding. They would lose their permits for any weapons-related infraction. It doesn’t happen
> Example: “Of the 51,078 permits that have been issued by the state since the law took effect in 2007, 44 permit holders have been charged with a crime while using a firearm through late October, according to records provided by the Kansas Attorney General’s Office.”
> http://www.kansas.com/news/article1103132.html
> http://www.kansas.com/2012/11/17/2572467/few-crimes-committed-by-concealed.html (* .00086%)*


That stooge is here just to stir up trouble.


----------



## woodwork201

miketx said:


> Here we have a democrat who wants murderers and rapists that are released from prison to have guns. Funny how the mind of a crime lover works.


Here we have an idiot who thinks that murderers and rapists that are released from prison don't have guns.

The difference between you and me, idiot, is that I don't want murderers and rapists released from prison.  I actually want to stop crime instead of taking feel good steps that not only don't work, they actually make it worse because people think they're safe from murderers and rapists because of some stupid law.


----------



## woodwork201

miketx said:


> That stooge is here just to stir up trouble.


I just call it like it is.  I'm not going to go along with your lie of being a supporter of the 2nd Amendment when you clearly do not. 

When the left say that 90% of gun owners support gun registration, through mandatory background checks or other "reasonable" gun control, it is you about whom they are speaking.


----------



## woodwork201

beagle9 said:


> Let's put it this way, I'm in favor of enforcing the laws we have already, and I'm also for keeping guns out of the hands of criminal's, and especially from these gang's who are reeking havock in the communities and within our societies that we are trying to live peacefully within.



You realize that the law that implemented most of what you support is titled the Gun Control Act of 1968, right? It's gun control.  You support gun control. Just be honest with yourself and with us.  You're not a supporter of "shall not be infringed" so you're not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment and, by inclusion, not a supporter of the Constitution.



beagle9 said:


> Not sure who you are, but you aren't dealing with a fool here, so save your quick condemnation for a leftist.



Yeah, so you say. Your anti-2nd Amendment posts don't make you a fool;  they just make you anti-2nd Amendment.  What makes you a fool is that you believe gun control makes a difference in crime.


----------



## Monk-Eye

*" Great Equalizer Of Shut Up And Shoot Back "

* Granny Get Your Peace Maker **

In my opinion the left would not understand the benefit of being able to arm themselves until puritanical mobs show up on their lawns to hall them off to the gallows .

Veterans from the battle field have seen the carnage that exists within the veracity of mammon and while mass shootings are sensational news stories , they are nothing by comparison , and those who died to ensure that others are free to defend themselves should not be sacrificed in vain .

I record and watch the Barney Miller show and the topic of " Do you have a license permit for that weapon ? " comes up repeatedly .

In the program situations review new york city limits on who is authorized to have a gun license , with store owners or assault victims being  charged for defending their property and their weapons immediately confiscated , with law enforcement , or personal body guards of high profile political targets , or security guards for large sums of money are among the few allowed .

I am a pro-choice republican and this decision is legitimate , whereas the usurping a birth requirement for equal protection is sedition .


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> I just call it like it is.  I'm not going to go along with your lie of being a supporter of the 2nd Amendment when you clearly do not.
> 
> When the left say that 90% of gun owners support gun registration, through mandatory background checks or other "reasonable" gun control, it is you about whom they are speaking.


Liars gotta lie.


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> Here we have an idiot who thinks that murderers and rapists that are released from prison don't have guns.
> 
> The difference between you and me, idiot, is that I don't want murderers and rapists released from prison.  I actually want to stop crime instead of taking feel good steps that not only don't work, they actually make it worse because people think they're safe from murderers and rapists because of some stupid law.


You've proven how stupid you are. You can stop.


----------



## beagle9

woodwork201 said:


> So you're in favor of gun control that doesn't work to keep law breakers from having guns but might keep law abiding from having guns.  You're in favor of gun registration which allows the government to get the guns, as historically proven many times.
> 
> You're in favor of what you consider to be reasonable gun control - all of which has been absolutely proven to NOT keep guns out of the hands of criminals.  Wonder why that is?  It's because they're criminals; they don't care about the law. Why are you too dense to understand that?  Were you dropped on the head as a child?  Got too close to the batter in a baseball game?  What happened?
> 
> Your suggestion of adapting to the times to keep the criminals at bay apparently includes not following the Constitution.  When you agree that the Government is allowed to operate outside the Constitution in one thing, then you must certainly agree that they can violate the Constitution in any thing they wish; do you not?  If not, explain which parts they can violate and which parts they cannot and how we tell them apart.
> 
> You're an anti-Constitution, anti-2nd Amendment, gun controller.  Oh, sure, you like your guns and even the right for some people to keep and bear some arms, if they first get government permission, but you can't claim to support the 2nd Amendment unless you support the part that says, "shall not be infringed" and you can't claim to defend the Constitution unless you support the 2nd Amendment.


You have got to be the most comprehension challenged human being I've ever met. Now go play in the sand box with the rest of your kid's who can't comprehend what adult's are saying when they speak. And political chick, I usually like everything you post, but you giving a thanks to this doofus puts you on probation with me. Back to this dummy, you act just like a leftist attempting to assign words and false intent to my post for argumentative purposes.


----------



## beagle9

miketx said:


> You've proven how stupid you are. You can stop.


He won't, he's just that stupid.... I see how he likes to assign everyone a narrative that he wants to assign them with, and then argue that narrative as if you or me actually insinuated or said what he says that we said or he says that we wanted to say but didn't say it...lol 

It's a common leftist tactic here, so one's gotta wonder where this cat's loyalty truly lays ? The bad thing is that he got political chic to actually give a thanks to his bull crap.


----------



## woodwork201

beagle9 said:


> You have got to be the most comprehension challenged human being I've ever met. Now go play in the sand box with the rest of your kid's who can't comprehend what adult's are saying when they speak. And political chick, I usually like everything you post, but you giving a thanks to this doofus puts you on probation with me. Back to this dummy, you act just like a leftist attempting to assign words and false intent to my post for argumentative purposes.





beagle9 said:


> He won't, he's just that stupid.... I see how he likes to assign everyone a narrative that he wants to assign them with, and then argue that narrative as if you or me actually insinuated or said what he says that we said or he says that we wanted to say but didn't say it...lol
> 
> It's a common leftist tactic here, so one's gotta wonder where this cat's loyalty truly lays ? The bad thing is that he got political chic to actually give a thanks to his bull crap.



Calling me a leftist is a good diversion for a gun controller trying to turn attention away from his own statements.  What you really don't like is being pointed out for the Fudd gun controller that you are.

Here's what you said in an earlier post in this thread:
​_I am in favor of strong background checks not red flag law's, and I'm in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of known or found to be criminal's through the background checks, but I'm not in favor of taking guns from law abiding citizen's, otherwise I'm against making it hard on law abiding citizen's to own and have the gun's of their choosing._​​_I'm for proper storage that keep people from easy access to guns during a break in, otherwise to one's home or automobile where a gun might be hap-hazzardly stored._​
Anyone with half a brain knows that background checks = registration.  You support both or you support neither.

And mandatory storage has already been held unconstitutional in Heller. So you're not an originalist, you don't support "shall not be infringed", and you don't support the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller.

You're just about as anti-2nd Amendment as any one I know of not a member of one of Bloomberg's anti-gun clubs.

Anyone with a quarter of a brain knows that laws against criminals purchasing guns don't prevent criminals from having guns.  Do you not have even a quarter of a brain?

There's probably something you don't know about criminals, I guess, so let me enlighten you: criminals don't follow the law.   I know.  That must be quite a shock for that less-than-a-quarter of a brain you have but it's actually true.  You can google it if you don't believe me.

So all you prove with your posts is that you're ignorant of the world around you and that you have bought into the leftist gun control ideas.


----------



## AZrailwhale

skews13 said:


> Wait until every violent thug, and a fast growing Latino population are all carrying around these conservative white peoples neighborhoods, schools, and churches.
> 
> Oh, did I forget to mention the rather large, and growing Muslim population also? No?


The violent thugs are already packing.


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> Calling me a leftist is a good diversion for a gun controller trying to turn attention away from his own statements.  What you really don't like is being pointed out for the Fudd gun controller that you are.
> 
> Here's what you said in an earlier post in this thread:
> ​_I am in favor of strong background checks not red flag law's, and I'm in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of known or found to be criminal's through the background checks, but I'm not in favor of taking guns from law abiding citizen's, otherwise I'm against making it hard on law abiding citizen's to own and have the gun's of their choosing._​​_I'm for proper storage that keep people from easy access to guns during a break in, otherwise to one's home or automobile where a gun might be hap-hazzardly stored._​
> Anyone with half a brain knows that background checks = registration.  You support both or you support neither.
> 
> And mandatory storage has already been held unconstitutional in Heller. So you're not an originalist, you don't support "shall not be infringed", and you don't support the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller.
> 
> You're just about as anti-2nd Amendment as any one I know of not a member of one of Bloomberg's anti-gun clubs.
> 
> Anyone with a quarter of a brain knows that laws against criminals purchasing guns don't prevent criminals from having guns.  Do you not have even a quarter of a brain?
> 
> There's probably something you don't know about criminals, I guess, so let me enlighten you: criminals don't follow the law.   I know.  That must be quite a shock for that less-than-a-quarter of a brain you have but it's actually true.  You can google it if you don't believe me.
> 
> So all you prove with your posts is that you're ignorant of the world around you and that you have bought into the leftist gun control ideas.


troll lying scum


----------



## woodwork201

miketx said:


> troll lying scum


I notice you haven't argued in a while for or against any of the gun controlling posts you made that I keep posting for the world to see.  Name calling is a much better tactic than defending your stated positions when the facts prove you're a gun controller.


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> I notice you haven't argued in a while for or against any of the gun controlling posts you made that I keep posting for the world to see.  Name calling is a much better tactic than defending your stated positions when the facts prove you're a gun controller.


You're a lying democrat pos. Die soon.


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> I notice you haven't argued in a while for or against any of the gun controlling posts you made that I keep posting for the world to see.  Name calling is a much better tactic than defending your stated positions when the facts prove you're a gun controller.


Keep lying democrat. You need the practice.


----------



## miketx

woodwork201 said:


> Kavanaugh is a self-centered, self-righteous, SOB, no doubt, but what did he fuck up in this one?  Not doubting; I just don't know.


Sounds like a description of you, commie.


----------



## beagle9

woodwork201 said:


> Calling me a leftist is a good diversion for a gun controller trying to turn attention away from his own statements.  What you really don't like is being pointed out for the Fudd gun controller that you are.
> 
> Here's what you said in an earlier post in this thread:
> ​_I am in favor of strong background checks not red flag law's, and I'm in favor of keeping guns out of the hands of known or found to be criminal's through the background checks, but I'm not in favor of taking guns from law abiding citizen's, otherwise I'm against making it hard on law abiding citizen's to own and have the gun's of their choosing._​​_I'm for proper storage that keep people from easy access to guns during a break in, otherwise to one's home or automobile where a gun might be hap-hazzardly stored._​
> *Anyone with half a brain knows that background checks = registration*.  You support both or you support neither.
> 
> *And mandatory storage has already been held unconstitutional in Heller*. So you're not an originalist, you don't support "shall not be infringed", and you don't support the Supreme Court's ruling in Heller.
> 
> You're just about as anti-2nd Amendment as any one I know of not a member of one of Bloomberg's anti-gun clubs.
> 
> Anyone with a quarter of a brain knows that *laws against criminals purchasing guns don't prevent criminals from having guns.  *Do you not have even a quarter of a brain?
> 
> There's probably something you don't know about criminals, I guess, so let me enlighten you: criminals don't follow the law.   I know.  That must be quite a shock for that less-than-a-quarter of a brain you have but it's actually true.  You can google it if you don't believe me.
> 
> So all you prove with your posts is that you're ignorant of the world around you and that you have bought into the leftist gun control ideas.


Points emboldened above, are to be addressed one by one next.

1. *Anyone with half a brain knows that background checks = registration..*

We've had background checks forever right, and yes when you buy a gun legally in a gun store, show and etc, then it is registered to your name correct, so what changes on that front ???

Hmmmm, is it your fear that any new gun control ideas might include a notary that is placed in between private gun sales or gun gift transfers in order to show where the gun's might be going, otherwise when being passed around between friends and neighbors or in other such situations ?? I'm not aware or sure about that type of privacy issue being breached, and I'm not for anything like that if it involves good citizen's rights being oppressed when it comes to passing gun's amongst themselves as in the cases of trading, gifts, and etc. Criminal's are a different story. We need to intercept any exchanges of weapon's between criminals by immediately confiscating such weapon's that are being carried or exchanged by them.

2. *And mandatory storage has already been held unconstitutional in Heller.*

Did I say mandatory anywhere??? Nope,but you attempted to assign that to me because I mentioned storage in the context of having self guiding rules in which should be practiced, and should therefore become all responsible gun owners thinking that to store their guns responsibly is a huge part of responsible gun ownership. How can you or anyone argue that point ??? If you got confused on what I was relaying here, then I hope it cleared it up for you. Don't have to worry about criminal's following such self guiding rules or practices.

3. * Laws against criminals purchasing guns don't prevent criminals from having guns.*

Here you go again, assigning false analysis of my understanding of such things, when I know criminal's don't obey the laws, but how do you put a criminal on notice if the left protects them and their criminality ? We should be able to deal with the criminal element without causing our rights to be diminished in the process, but that's not the way that the left goes about this stuff, so I agree that we should push back on the left, but we should also recognize that Houston we have a huge problem on our hands when it comes to Democrat's and criminal's these days.

Up to me I'd go after criminal's only, and never attempt to take away any rights the good citizen's have, and I would expect the good citizen's to help in addressing the issue, and to come up with ways in which to battle these tragic events with great solutions and not with stupid emotional rhetoric.


----------



## whoisit

Anyone ever wonder why it is murder and a human baby if you cause a woman to lose her " CHILD" yet its just a glob of tissue if she wants to 'lose'it?


----------



## woodwork201

beagle9 said:


> 1. *Anyone with half a brain knows that background checks = registration..*
> 
> We've had background checks forever right, and yes when you buy a gun legally in a gun store, show and etc, then it is registered to your name correct, so what changes on that front ???
> 
> Hmmmm, is it your fear that any new gun control ideas might include a notary that is placed in between private gun sales or gun gift transfers in order to show where the gun's might be going, otherwise when being passed around between friends and neighbors or in other such situations ?? I'm not aware or sure about that type of privacy issue being breached, and I'm not for anything like that if it involves good citizen's rights being oppressed when it comes to passing gun's amongst themselves as in the cases of trading, gifts, and etc. Criminal's are a different story. We need to intercept any exchanges of weapon's between criminals by immediately confiscating such weapon's that are being carried or exchanged by them.


What you and your gun controlling Democrat buddies are asking for is universal background checks, not just continuing the current, ineffective, useless, unconstitutional, state of background checks and government permission to own a gun.

I'm going to explain this to you even though it has been explained by others many times and you're well aware of it - but you pretend ignorance to justify your push for gun control, registration and, ultimately, confiscation.  

In order to enforce universal background checks there must, not might, not should, but must, be full gun registration.  Otherwise, how can you and your friends in the ATF know that a background check is completed when a gun is transferred?

Though the current state of background checks amounts to gun registration already, at least there are guns in the hands of the people that are not on the government lists, and I can sell my guns to anyone I believe to not be a criminal without telling the government I did so and I can buy a gun from someone without telling the government I did so.

I'm curious, though; do you support background checks on the right to vote?  The Constitution actually explicitly states that the right to vote can be taken for serious crimes.  Should there be background checks in order to vote?  

Should there be background checks before we let someone write a letter to their Congressman or otherwise protest or argue grievances against the government under the 1st Amendment?

Should there be background checks before we allow a jury trial or an attorney?


beagle9 said:


> 2. *And mandatory storage has already been held unconstitutional in Heller.*
> 
> Did I say mandatory anywhere??? Nope,but you attempted to assign that to me because I mentioned storage in the context of having self guiding rules in which should be practiced, and should therefore become all responsible gun owners thinking that to store their guns responsibly is a huge part of responsible gun ownership. How can you or anyone argue that point ??? If you got confused on what I was relaying here, then I hope it cleared it up for you. Don't have to worry about criminal's following such self guiding rules or practices.


Yes, you did imply mandatory storage.  Don't be a liar along with being a gun controller.  The discussion was what gun control you support and you said you support storage requirements.  You used as strong of a statement regarding storage as you did about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and background checks.  

You didn't say mandatory for any of those; you just said that all of those are gun controls that you support.  I'm certain you didn't mean they were all just good suggestions but that none of them should be mandatory.

With every post you make, you show yourself to be more and more like the Brady's and the Bloombergs.  You support  gun control and lie about what your goals are.  But, unlike them, they at least admit they're gun controllers.  

You keep asking for the same things they ask for while claiming to to not be a gun controller.  You defend the existing, unconstitutional, laws that don't work at all to reduce crime.  Since reducing crime isn't your objective (unless you really are that stupid to believe that they do reduce crime) then gun control on otherwise law-abiding Americans must be your objective.



beagle9 said:


> 3. * Laws against criminals purchasing guns don't prevent criminals from having guns.*
> 
> Here you go again, assigning false analysis of my understanding of such things, when I know criminal's don't obey the laws, but how do you put a criminal on notice if the left protects them and their criminality ? We should be able to deal with the criminal element without causing our rights to be diminished in the process, but that's not the way that the left goes about this stuff, so I agree that we should push back on the left, but we should also recognize that Houston we have a huge problem on our hands when it comes to Democrat's and criminal's these days.
> 
> Up to me I'd go after criminal's only, and never attempt to take away any rights the good citizen's have, and I would expect the good citizen's to help in addressing the issue, and to come up with ways in which to battle these tragic events with great solutions and not with stupid emotional rhetoric.


So, instead of going after criminals for being criminals, you support gun control under the false promise (that  means lie) of reduced crime by regulating the guns of law-abiding citizens.

How does a law forbidding anyone from owning a gun put criminals on notice?  On notice of what?  On notice that gun controllers are stupid and that the criminals can actually get away with anything they want because nobody actually gives a shit about them having guns and nobody wants to put them in jail for their crimes?  

Or is there some other notice that you believe you're giving to criminals?  Whatever it is, they don't seem to be getting the message.

Like most of the left, who don't really understand the real world situation of gun ownership and crime and that they're not nearly as related as their masters are telling them, you just want to do something because we have a problem.  So, like them, lead with your emotionally based, completely unfounded, gun controls on the law-abiding, rather than addressing crime.

If you really want to address crime, you first put criminals into prison for very long terms in very hard conditions.  

Then, you start addressing the root causes; strip the gangs of their money and power, just as we did with the 21st Amendment, and end prohibition.  
Then you fix the education system and give all Americans, no matter where they live, or what race they are, the opportunity to choose quality schools, private or public, and their school tax dollars go with the child, not with the school.

And, lastly, you quit paying mothers to make babies as a source of welfare income and hold fathers accountable - including jail for failure to do so, for the children they make.  

This is how you effect crime.  More laws and regulations on law-abiding Americans, because only law-abiding Americans follow the law (remember; I taught you that earlier in this thread) does nothing to effect crime.


----------



## Tom Paine 1949

This was once an interesting thread. Now it is nonsensical. I confess it *is* amusing seeing these Republican 2nd Amendment fanatics turn viciously on each other, accusing each other of being “Demoncrats” or worse. Whatever … guess it’s a sign of the times.

This new guy, @wordwork201 , certainly *is* a despicable basket case.
On that, at least, I’m with our nutty but still more down-to-earth Trump supporters.


----------



## woodwork201

Tom Paine 1949 said:


> This was once an interesting thread. Now it is nonsensical. I confess it *is* amusing seeing these Republican 2nd Amendment fanatics turn viciously on each other, accusing each other of being “Demoncrats” or worse. Whatever … guess it’s a sign of the times.
> 
> This new guy, @wordwork201 , certainly *is* a despicable basket case.
> On that, at least, I’m with our nutty but still more down-to-earth Trump supporters.



I get under your skin, don't I?  That's easy to do when you present the truth to liars.. These Fudd gun controllers who may happen to vote Republican but are certainly not supporters of the 2nd Amendment respond with the personal and name-calling attacks as well - because they, like you, just can't win on the Constitution, the facts, or even just plain logic...

Thanks for the compliment.


----------



## beagle9

woodwork201 said:


> What you and your gun controlling Democrat buddies are asking for is universal background checks, not just continuing the current, ineffective, useless, unconstitutional, state of background checks and government permission to own a gun.
> 
> I'm going to explain this to you even though it has been explained by others many times and you're well aware of it - but you pretend ignorance to justify your push for gun control, registration and, ultimately, confiscation.
> 
> In order to enforce universal background checks there must, not might, not should, but must, be full gun registration.  Otherwise, how can you and your friends in the ATF know that a background check is completed when a gun is transferred?
> 
> Though the current state of background checks amounts to gun registration already, at least there are guns in the hands of the people that are not on the government lists, and I can sell my guns to anyone I believe to not be a criminal without telling the government I did so and I can buy a gun from someone without telling the government I did so.
> 
> I'm curious, though; do you support background checks on the right to vote?  The Constitution actually explicitly states that the right to vote can be taken for serious crimes.  Should there be background checks in order to vote?
> 
> Should there be background checks before we let someone write a letter to their Congressman or otherwise protest or argue grievances against the government under the 1st Amendment?
> 
> Should there be background checks before we allow a jury trial or an attorney?
> 
> Yes, you did imply mandatory storage.  Don't be a liar along with being a gun controller.  The discussion was what gun control you support and you said you support storage requirements.  You used as strong of a statement regarding storage as you did about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and background checks.
> 
> You didn't say mandatory for any of those; you just said that all of those are gun controls that you support.  I'm certain you didn't mean they were all just good suggestions but that none of them should be mandatory.
> 
> With every post you make, you show yourself to be more and more like the Brady's and the Bloombergs.  You support  gun control and lie about what your goals are.  But, unlike them, they at least admit they're gun controllers.
> 
> You keep asking for the same things they ask for while claiming to to not be a gun controller.  You defend the existing, unconstitutional, laws that don't work at all to reduce crime.  Since reducing crime isn't your objective (unless you really are that stupid to believe that they do reduce crime) then gun control on otherwise law-abiding Americans must be your objective.
> 
> 
> So, instead of going after criminals for being criminals, you support gun control under the false promise (that  means lie) of reduced crime by regulating the guns of law-abiding citizens.
> 
> How does a law forbidding anyone from owning a gun put criminals on notice?  On notice of what?  On notice that gun controllers are stupid and that the criminals can actually get away with anything they want because nobody actually gives a shit about them having guns and nobody wants to put them in jail for their crimes?
> 
> Or is there some other notice that you believe you're giving to criminals?  Whatever it is, they don't seem to be getting the message.
> 
> Like most of the left, who don't really understand the real world situation of gun ownership and crime and that they're not nearly as related as their masters are telling them, you just want to do something because we have a problem.  So, like them, lead with your emotionally based, completely unfounded, gun controls on the law-abiding, rather than addressing crime.
> 
> If you really want to address crime, you first put criminals into prison for very long terms in very hard conditions.
> 
> Then, you start addressing the root causes; strip the gangs of their money and power, just as we did with the 21st Amendment, and end prohibition.
> Then you fix the education system and give all Americans, no matter where they live, or what race they are, the opportunity to choose quality schools, private or public, and their school tax dollars go with the child, not with the school.
> 
> And, lastly, you quit paying mothers to make babies as a source of welfare income and hold fathers accountable - including jail for failure to do so, for the children they make.
> 
> This is how you effect crime.  More laws and regulations on law-abiding Americans, because only law-abiding Americans follow the law (remember; I taught you that earlier in this thread) does nothing to effect crime.





woodwork201 said:


> What you and your gun controlling Democrat buddies are asking for is universal background checks, not just continuing the current, ineffective, useless, unconstitutional, state of background checks and government permission to own a gun.
> 
> I'm going to explain this to you even though it has been explained by others many times and you're well aware of it - but you pretend ignorance to justify your push for gun control, registration and, ultimately, confiscation.
> 
> In order to enforce universal background checks there must, not might, not should, but must, be full gun registration.  Otherwise, how can you and your friends in the ATF know that a background check is completed when a gun is transferred?
> 
> Though the current state of background checks amounts to gun registration already, at least there are guns in the hands of the people that are not on the government lists, and I can sell my guns to anyone I believe to not be a criminal without telling the government I did so and I can buy a gun from someone without telling the government I did so.
> 
> I'm curious, though; do you support background checks on the right to vote?  The Constitution actually explicitly states that the right to vote can be taken for serious crimes.  Should there be background checks in order to vote?
> 
> Should there be background checks before we let someone write a letter to their Congressman or otherwise protest or argue grievances against the government under the 1st Amendment?
> 
> Should there be background checks before we allow a jury trial or an attorney?
> 
> Yes, you did imply mandatory storage.  Don't be a liar along with being a gun controller.  The discussion was what gun control you support and you said you support storage requirements.  You used as strong of a statement regarding storage as you did about keeping guns out of the hands of criminals and background checks.
> 
> You didn't say mandatory for any of those; you just said that all of those are gun controls that you support.  I'm certain you didn't mean they were all just good suggestions but that none of them should be mandatory.
> 
> With every post you make, you show yourself to be more and more like the Brady's and the Bloombergs.  You support  gun control and lie about what your goals are.  But, unlike them, they at least admit they're gun controllers.
> 
> You keep asking for the same things they ask for while claiming to to not be a gun controller.  You defend the existing, unconstitutional, laws that don't work at all to reduce crime.  Since reducing crime isn't your objective (unless you really are that stupid to believe that they do reduce crime) then gun control on otherwise law-abiding Americans must be your objective.
> 
> 
> So, instead of going after criminals for being criminals, you support gun control under the false promise (that  means lie) of reduced crime by regulating the guns of law-abiding citizens.
> 
> How does a law forbidding anyone from owning a gun put criminals on notice?  On notice of what?  On notice that gun controllers are stupid and that the criminals can actually get away with anything they want because nobody actually gives a shit about them having guns and nobody wants to put them in jail for their crimes?
> 
> Or is there some other notice that you believe you're giving to criminals?  Whatever it is, they don't seem to be getting the message.
> 
> Like most of the left, who don't really understand the real world situation of gun ownership and crime and that they're not nearly as related as their masters are telling them, you just want to do something because we have a problem.  So, like them, lead with your emotionally based, completely unfounded, gun controls on the law-abiding, rather than addressing crime.
> 
> If you really want to address crime, you first put criminals into prison for very long terms in very hard conditions.
> 
> Then, you start addressing the root causes; strip the gangs of their money and power, just as we did with the 21st Amendment, and end prohibition.
> Then you fix the education system and give all Americans, no matter where they live, or what race they are, the opportunity to choose quality schools, private or public, and their school tax dollars go with the child, not with the school.
> 
> And, lastly, you quit paying mothers to make babies as a source of welfare income and hold fathers accountable - including jail for failure to do so, for the children they make.
> 
> This is how you effect crime.  More laws and regulations on law-abiding Americans, because only law-abiding Americans follow the law (remember; I taught you that earlier in this thread) does nothing to effect crime.


Listen you knucklehead, quit trying to use me in order to create these ridiculously long attention loathing post that don't address the problem's of today, and stop your lying about my position on the good citizen's being left alone while the criminal's and crazies are somehow looked to be stopped for possessing gun's in which they use to attack us in an environment that has caused the good citizen's to feel as if they are no longer represented in this nation.


----------



## woodwork201

beagle9 said:


> Listen you knucklehead, quit trying to use me in order to create these ridiculously long attention loathing post that don't address the problem's of today, and stop your lying about my position on the good citizen's being left alone while the criminal's and crazies are somehow looked to be stopped for possessing gun's in which they use to attack us in an environment that has caused the good citizen's to feel as if they are no longer represented in this nation.


I'm not using you for anything except as an example of a gun-control-wolf dressed in a 2nd Amendment t-shirt.

The Constitution says, shall not be infringed.  You say shall be infringed.  

How has the laws against felons possessing guns reduced crime?  Can you name a single case where background checks weren't passed before a shooter shot up a school?  

Even in Sandy Hook, the mother passed the background check but her own son shot her to get the gun.  Just what law in the current set or any other set of laws you propose would have stopped Sandy Hook?

Just like the rest of your gun-controlling, leftist, buddies,  you're either falling for the lies of the Everytown group or you're talking out of emotion and not logic (because you can't offer a single logical defense of any gun control law in the United States today), or, the most likely case, you just hate that there are guns in the hands of the people and you're doing your part to make the case to get them removed.

It is not guns that make the good citizens feel  unsafe; it's the leftists letting violent, convicted, felons back out on the streets.  Rather than supporting the work of solving the actual problem, you are calling for the things that you and I, and everyone else, knows will not, has not, can not, work.  Since you and I both know it can not work then your motive can not possibly be the safety, perceived or real, of the good citizens but must be, instead, taking the guns out of the hands of the good citizens - since  we know the laws don't take the guns out of the bad citizens.


----------



## beagle9

woodwork201 said:


> I'm not using you for anything except as an example of a gun-control-wolf dressed in a 2nd Amendment t-shirt.
> 
> The Constitution says, shall not be infringed.  You say shall be infringed.
> 
> How has the laws against felons possessing guns reduced crime?  Can you name a single case where background checks weren't passed before a shooter shot up a school?
> 
> Even in Sandy Hook, the mother passed the background check but her own son shot her to get the gun.  Just what law in the current set or any other set of laws you propose would have stopped Sandy Hook?
> 
> Just like the rest of your gun-controlling, leftist, buddies,  you're either falling for the lies of the Everytown group or you're talking out of emotion and not logic (because you can't offer a single logical defense of any gun control law in the United States today), or, the most likely case, you just hate that there are guns in the hands of the people and you're doing your part to make the case to get them removed.
> 
> It is not guns that make the good citizens feel  unsafe; it's the leftists letting violent, convicted, felons back out on the streets.  Rather than supporting the work of solving the actual problem, you are calling for the things that you and I, and everyone else, knows will not, has not, can not, work.  Since you and I both know it can not work then your motive can not possibly be the safety, perceived or real, of the good citizens but must be, instead, taking the guns out of the hands of the good citizens - since  we know the laws don't take the guns out of the bad citizens.


You are one basket case from hell that's for sure.

So don't talk about doing a damned thing to help somehow, just duck and cover when the next shooter shows up at an event, and worse advertises his intent prior, and even worse than that he was found to be a career criminal, and then way worse than that he freely killed innocent men, women, and children with impunity at those events..... Now you sit there gripping your guns tight thinking wow I dodged those bullet's that time, and thank goodness it wasn't my family that got killed, and now you think "I gotta get on the internet to stop anyone from talking about solutions because it might cause a negative reaction or situation that makes my guns an issue because of these freakazoids now out there doing what they've been doing.

I understand your fear, and I'm with you on your concerns, but why don't you give some damned solutional input instead of just sitting there gripping your guns super tight in fear, yet meanwhile innocent citizen's are dying at the hand's of these killer's who are taking advantage of our lax in ideas and solutions that would keep our rights active, but somehow remove their abilities to abuse us when they are easily infiltrating the chicken houses as the wolves for which they are.


----------

