Biden Blames Guns

[Ray From Cleveland]

What an ignorant question you’re pathetic gun scum. Why wouldn’t one?

Because people do make more than one purchase at a time when buying guns. Why would buying more than one gun indicate anything?

 

[Big Bend Texas]

All Thanks to no questions asked. It’s nobody else’s business, right?

Why are you lying again, he had to pass a background check.

 

[Big Bend Texas]

You can pay for it and then get an appointment for a test you will have to take just like student drivers have to do to get a drivers license. He should be willing to allow authorities local and state to review any social media content over the past five years.

Driving is a privilege not a right.

You've just wiped out and peed on 3 of the first 4 Amendments.

Thankfully you'll never be in a position to have any input on public policy or law making.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Why does insulting people you disagree with make you feel better about yourself?

Why don't you ask your boyfriend, 2aguy , he does it all the time

 

[2aguy]

Why don't you ask your boyfriend, 2aguy , he does it all the time

Yeah, but my insults are accurate….

 

[scruffy]

In 1942 on the orders of FDR over 120,000 American citizens were arrested and put into concentration camps and all of their property seized. This was done by fiat, no votes, not due process at all and was done on the basis of race and nationality.

That was Fascism in the name of protecting our "Democracy".

Best learn some history before spewing any more bile.

Exactly.

And NONE OF THEM WERE BLACK.

 

[Captain Caveman]

Yeah, but my insults are accurate….

Ok bellend

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That was Fascism in the name of protecting our "Democracy".

So in your mind does that justify what Donald J Trump attempted to do against 88 million American a people that the US government is not at war with. Or do you consider yourself at war against Biden voters?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Driving is a privilege not a right.

Buying an assault rifle is likewise a privilege not a right. The Constitution did not draw the line with regards to individual rights at any particular type of firearm or age to buy them. Indeed there were not too many guns in 1790 that had the human killing capabilities that we have now.

The right to bear arms is absolutely arbitrary and ambiguous. We as a society get to decide were certain lines are drawn,

The SA literally does not give the right to bear arms based on an individual citizens’ desire to possess any human killing tool he wants, specifically when they are not participating in a well regulated militia.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That was Fascism in the name of protecting our "Democracy".

Trump attempted to deprive 88 million if they right to vote. Is it ok with you.

Best learn some history before spewing any more bile.

You too:

Trump attempted to use fake electors from seven states that Biden won to force Mike Pence to deny counting those seven states which was an attempt to throw the 2020 election into chaos on Jan6.

And do you agree that the lawful gun owner, Stewart Rhodes, the founder of the Oath keepers, should be convicted of the Seditious Conspiracy charges against him for the role he played in helping Trump create chaos on Jan6 to stay in power.

Could it be the NRA Is “woke” to the fact that it’s membership supports with fervent enthusiasm President Trump’s conspiracy and attempt on Jan6 to create election chaos on Jan6 resulting in US House Members on the GOP and God’s GUNS and GUTS side to vote in a 26 to 24 Republican majority the re-election of Trump and Pence to the White House?

If he wasn't allowed to buy any AR's he still would have attacked that school

. . or not! No one knows. Even gun scum cannot know that.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Buying an assault rifle is likewise a privilege not a right.

You mean an AR15.
AR15s are not assault rifles. You keep making that mistake.
And yes, buying and owning them is a right.

The Constitution did not draw the line with regards to individual rights at any particular type of firearm or age to buy them.

And thus, a right of the individual to keep and bear arms.

Indeed there were not too many guns in 1790 that had the human killing capabilities that we have now.

Your argument was dismissed 2 decades ago:

Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.

The right to bear arms is absolutely arbitrary and ambiguous. We as a society get to decide were certain lines are drawn,

Only for those people who havent read the jurisprudence sorrounding same -- people like you.

The SA literally does not give the right to bear arms

Correct. Literally nothing in the constitution grants rights.

based on an individual citizens’ desire to possess any human killing tool he wants, specifically when they are not participating in a well regulated militia.

Your argument was dismissed 2 decades ago:

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And yes, buying and owning them is a right.

Do you own an M14

Your argument was dismissed 2 decades ago:

What did you have to do different than what Salvador Ramos did to buy an assault rifle.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you own an M14

Yes.

What did you have to do different than what Salvador Ramos did to buy an assault rifle.

What's that?
You have no meaningful response to my post?
Thought not.
Your arguments were dismissed 2 decades ago.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Buying an assault rifle is likewise a privilege not a right. The Constitution did not draw the line with regards to individual rights at any particular type of firearm or age to buy them. Indeed there were not too many guns in 1790 that had the human killing capabilities that we have now.

The right to bear arms is absolutely arbitrary and ambiguous. We as a society get to decide were certain lines are drawn,

The SA literally does not give the right to bear arms based on an individual citizens’ desire to possess any human killing tool he wants, specifically when they are not participating in a well regulated militia.

You don't have to be part of a militia to have Second Amendment rights. That's been determined years ago. You are correct that the founders did not outline any particular weapons. They knew our weapons would advance like everything else in our country would. That's why they created an amendment process, to be able to change the Constitution when people of the time felt it necessary. They knew in the future we wouldn't be limited to shotguns and muskets.

Unfortunately for you and your ilk, the amendment process takes a super majority every step of the way, and guns are nowhere near that point. The interest in guns and self-defense grows every year, and the states adoption of CCW laws is evidence of that, not to mention gun ownership in this country.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Unfortunately for you and your ilk, the amendment process takes a super majority every step of the way....

Can anyone name 13 states that will never ratify an amendment that repeals the 2nd?
Anyone?
Anyone?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

AR15s are not assault rifles.

Was the Uvalde massacre the result of an assault by one deranged person on a Classroom full of 10 year olds.

Did he use an AR 15?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Was the Uvalde massacre the result of an assault by one deranged person on a Classroom full of 10 year olds.
Did he use an AR 15?

AR15s are not assault rifles.
And thus, your repeated claims to that effect are false.
Why do you continue to make claims you know are false?

Your arguments were dismissed 2 decades ago.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

That's been determined years ago.

Abortion determined legal 50 years ago but that means nothing to conservatives an more.

I can read what the original writer wrote:

How you drop “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” and then reword the meaning of the phrase “the right of the people” plural to - keep and bear arms to The right of the individual to keep and bear arms it’s not really comprehensible. You got lucky a while back and that’s about it

 

[M14 Shooter]

How you drop “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state”...

Your argument was dismissed 2 decades ago.
You choose to be wrong.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Abortion determined legal 50 years ago but that means nothing to conservatives an more.

I can read what the original writer wrote:
View attachment 653239

How you drop “A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state” and then reword the meaning of the phrase “the right of the people” plural to - keep and bear arms to The right of the individual to keep and bear arms it’s not really comprehensible. You got lucky a while back and that’s about it

Here is how:

How A Comma Gave Americans The Right To Own Guns

The Supreme Court struck down D.C.'s ban on hand guns, the strictest gun control law to date, because of a comma.

www.businessinsider.com

But it's not about what I think. It's not about what you think. It's about how our justices think since they studied our history, constitution and founders much more in depth than most people in the country.