Biden Blames Guns

[NotfooledbyW]

It's about how our justices think

“preliminary throat clearing”

This is laughable.. the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' On this reading, the bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don’t really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,'" The New York Times reported.

“People” Is plural as in a militia. That was a political decision and a mistake - they do not refer to “individual rights“ in the second part, commas or no commas

 

[scruffy]

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?

Hey stupid leftard liar, DEMANDING CONFIDENCE IN A SECURE ELECTION IS NOT A COUP.

It's NOT AN INSURRECTION, dumbass leftist shit for brains fucking asshole, and if I had any richer words I'd use them.

If you had even ONE brain cell in that retarded maggot infested leftist brain of yours, YOU WOULD BE DEMANDING A SECURE ELECTION TOO.

What a bunch of asswipes the Demoscum are. They're so fucking stupid they DON'T CARE that NO ONE HAS CONFIDENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS.

Fucking fucktards. I'm speechless. Out of words

 

[2aguy]

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?

He didn't do anything.....have you cashed your check from China this week?

 

[NotfooledbyW]

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.

OK listen to this one:

Scalia: 'Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited​

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Hey stupid leftard liar, DEMANDING CONFIDENCE IN A SECURE ELECTION IS NOT A COUP.

Trumps fake electors scheme made not one single effort in all of it to demand confidence in a secure election.

Here is Trumps plot that Pence stopped:

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.

 

[2aguy]

OK listen to this one:

Scalia: 'Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited​

And also Scalia...on the AR-15 rifle.......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

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.

--------

 

[NotfooledbyW]

Is this one of yours Big Bend Texas ?

Hey stupid leftard liar, DEMANDING CONFIDENCE IN A SECURE ELECTION IS NOT A COUP.

It's NOT AN INSURRECTION, dumbass leftist shit for brains fucking asshole, and if I had any richer words I'd use them.

If you had even ONE brain cell in that retarded maggot infested leftist brain of yours, YOU WOULD BE DEMANDING A SECURE ELECTION TOO.

What a bunch of asswipes the Demoscum are. They're so fucking stupid they DON'T CARE that NO ONE HAS CONFIDENCE IN OUR ELECTIONS.

Fucking fucktards. I'm speechless. Out of words

I’m not seeing an argument other than if scruffy says it so it must be so.

 

[NotfooledbyW]

And also Scalia...on the AR-15 rifle.......

https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/15-133_7l48.pdf


The question under Heller is not whether citizens have adequate alternatives available for self-defense.

Rather, Heller asks whether the law bans types of firearms commonly used for a lawful purpose—regardless of whether alternatives exist. 554 U. S., at 627–629. And Heller draws a distinction between such firearms and weapons specially adapted to unlawful uses and not in common use, such as sawed-off shotguns. Id., at 624–625.
The City’s ban is thus highly suspect because it broadly prohibits common semiautomatic firearms used for lawful purposes.


Roughly five million Americans own AR-style semiautomatic rifles. See 784 F. 3d, at 415, n. 3. The overwhelming majority of citizens who own and use such rifles do so for lawful purposes, including self-defense and target shooting. See ibid. Under our precedents, that is all that is needed for citizens to have a right under the Second Amendment to keep such weapons. See McDonald, 561 U. S., at 767–768; Heller, supra, at 628–629.


https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/07pdf/07-290.pdf

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.

--------

That’s why Democrats are not proposing to take guns away from the people who already have them.

 

[2aguy]

That’s why Democrats are not proposing to take guns away from the people who already have them.

Yeah.....we just learned from Canada the next step.....they will simply ban the purchase, sale, and even transfer of any gun......making it impossible to get one....

The proper response to anti-gun fascists like yourself....Go F**k yourself.

 

[Sandy Shanks]

The AP reports, "The House is swiftly working to put its stamp on gun legislation in response to mass shootings in Texas and New York by 18-year-old assailants who used semi-automatic rifles to kill 31 people, including 19 children."

Actually, there have been 233 mass shootings this year, 20 mass shootings since the slaughter of children and teachers in Uvalde.

The AP continued, "The Democratic legislation, called the Protecting Our Kids Act, was quickly added to the legislative docket after last week’s school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

"But with Republicans nearly all in opposition, the House action will mostly be symbolic, merely putting lawmakers on record about gun control ahead of this year’s elections. The Senate is taking a different course, with a bipartisan group striving toward a compromise on gun safety legislation that can win enough GOP support to become law. Those talks are making “rapid progress,” according to Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of the Republican negotiators.

Many would be much happier if a Democratic Senator had said that. The decades old record shows that Republicans are merely playing the game. There is an election in a few months. They need to pretend they are more concerned about Americans dying from gunfire than the millions they receive from the NRA.

 

[2aguy]

The AP reports, "The House is swiftly working to put its stamp on gun legislation in response to mass shootings in Texas and New York by 18-year-old assailants who used semi-automatic rifles to kill 31 people, including 19 children."

Actually, there have been 233 mass shootings this year, 20 mass shootings since the slaughter of children and teachers in Uvalde.

The AP continued, "The Democratic legislation, called the Protecting Our Kids Act, was quickly added to the legislative docket after last week’s school shooting in Uvalde, Texas.

"But with Republicans nearly all in opposition, the House action will mostly be symbolic, merely putting lawmakers on record about gun control ahead of this year’s elections. The Senate is taking a different course, with a bipartisan group striving toward a compromise on gun safety legislation that can win enough GOP support to become law. Those talks are making “rapid progress,” according to Sen. Susan Collins of Maine, one of the Republican negotiators.

Many would be much happier if a Democratic Senator had said that. The decades old record shows that Republicans are merely playing the game. There is an election in a few months. They need to pretend they are more concerned about Americans dying from gunfire than the millions they receive from the NRA.

There have not been 223 mass public shootings you dumb ass......

Since Jan. 1 there have now been 4......

Moderators....I am posting the following in response to this post....

US mass shootings, 1982–2022: Data from Mother Jones’ investigation

Dating back to at least 2005, the FBI and leading criminologists essentially defined a mass shooting as a single attack in a public place in which four or more victims were killed. We adopted that baseline for fatalities when we gathered data in 2012 on three decades worth of cases.
-------

• Here is a description of the criteria we use:
  
  • The perpetrator took the lives of at least four people. A 2008 FBI report identifies an individual as a mass murderer—versus a spree killer or a serial killer—if he kills four or more people in a single incident (not including himself), typically in a single location. (*In 2013, the US government’s fatality baseline was revised down to three; our database reflects this change beginning from Jan. 2013, as detailed above.)
  • The killings were carried out by a lone shooter. (Except in the case of the Columbine massacre and the Westside Middle School killings, which involved two shooters.)
  • The shootings occurred in a public place. (Except in the case of a party on private property in Crandon, Wisconsin, and another in Seattle, where crowds of strangers had gathered, essentially constituting a public crowd.) Crimes primarily related to gang activity or armed robbery are not included, nor are mass killings that took place in private homes (often stemming from domestic violence).
  • Perpetrators who died or were wounded during the attack are not included in the victim tallies.
  • We included a handful of cases also known as “spree killings“—cases in which the killings occurred in more than one location, but still over a short period of time, that otherwise fit the above criteria.
  ----------------------

Our research focused on indiscriminate rampages in public places resulting in four or more victims killed by the attacker. We exclude shootings stemming from more conventionally motivated crimes such as armed robbery or gang violence. (Or in which the perpetrators have not been identified.) Other news outlets and researchers have since published larger tallies that include a wide range of gun crimes in which four or more people have been either wounded or killed. While those larger datasets of multiple-victim shootings are useful for studying the broader problem of gun violence, our investigation provides an in-depth look at a distinct phenomenon—from the firearms used and mental health factors to the growing copycat problem. Tracking mass shootings is complex; we believe ours is the most useful approach for studying this specific phenomenon.



---------
The actual number of mass shootings from Mother Jones......

Here you go...the number of mass public shootings according to Mother Jones...rabid, anti gun, left wing news source.....not the NRA...

The list below comes from the old definition of 4 killed to make a shooting a mass shooting...if you now go to the link there are more than listed below...but that is because Mother Jones changed the list from the time I first posted it...and changed to obama's new standard of only 3 dead to make a mass shooting...



US Mass Shootings, 1982-2015: Data From Mother Jones' Investigation

2021...6
2020....2

2019....10

2018... 12

2017: 11 ( 5 according to the old standard)

2016....6

2015....4 ( obama's new standard....7)

2014....2 (4)

2013....5

2012....7

2011....3

2010....1

2009....4

2008....3

2007....4

2006....3

2005...2

2004....1

2003...1

2002 not listed so more than likely 0

2001....1

2000....1

1999....5

1998...3

1997....2

1996....1

1995...1

1994...1

1993...4

1992...2

1991...3

1990...1

1989...2

1988....1

1987...1

1986...1

1985... not listed so probably 0

1984...2

1983...not listed so probably 0

1982...1

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

That’s why Democrats are not proposing to take guns away from the people who already have them.

The only reason they are not proposing it is because of the US Constitution that prohibits them from doing so. If not for the Constitution, they would ban anything that shoots something through the air including a rubber band gun.

 

[Flash]

View attachment 653279

 

[Flash]

Liberals don't want this to happen

 

[Flash]

These are the little worthless chickenshits demanding gun control

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

“preliminary throat clearing”

This is laughable.. the second comma divides the amendment into two clauses: one 'prefatory' and the other 'operative.' On this reading, the bit about a well-regulated militia is just preliminary throat clearing; the framers don’t really get down to business until they start talking about 'the right of the people ... shall not be infringed,'" The New York Times reported.

“People” Is plural as in a militia. That was a political decision and a mistake - they do not refer to “individual rights“ in the second part, commas or no commas

So you think you know more about our Constitution than people that studied it their entire lives? People is plural as in people, as in all of us. People is always plural. Person is singular.

 

[M14 Shooter]

This is laughable.. the second comma divides the amendment ...

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

 

[M14 Shooter]

OK listen to this one:

Scalia: 'Like most rights, the Second Amendment is not unlimited​

Which, like with all right, in no way means that it can be limited in any and every way.

 

[DarthTrader]

So you think you know more about our Constitution than people that studied it their entire lives? People is plural as in people, as in all of us. People is always plural. Person is singular.

The definitive article "the" is singular. Meaning "people" is singular, which means people as in a collective nation. Literally.

"A group of people" is plural (noun).

"The people" is singular. Like "The country", or "the nation", or "the Chinese, the Germans," etc.

Why it's confusing is because a dictionary won't go into this nuance, but the nuance is that "the" defines a single thing. The tomatoes, the potatoes, etc. There's one of them. One bunch, bushel, whatever have you.

It's a COLLECTIVE right that the Founders intended to be so absolutely universal that we were all treated as "the".

 

[DarthTrader]

These are the little worthless chickenshits demanding gun control


View attachment 653281

Help! The American people (singular again) are outside. They are scary!