Biden proposes banning vast majority of all guns.

[M14 Shooter]

It's fallacious to say that real men make sure the children are safe? WHAAAAA??????

I guess you're just pretending to know anything about this subject.
Fallacious appeals to emotion seem to work on you. Sorry, they don't work on me.

 

[Jaxson]

Still can't answer my questions?
W/o rational factual answers, it means you don't have a meaningful solution to propose.

Do you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

Do you?

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate you have no rational factual answers - it means you don't have a meaningful solution to propose.

 

[Jaxson]

Thank you for continuing to demonstrate you have no rational factual answers - it means you don't have a meaningful solution to propose.

ok, let's say I don't, do you?

 

[M14 Shooter]

ok, let's say I don't..

There's no "saying".
Absent rational factual answers to the questions asked of you, you don't have a meaningful solution to propose.

 

[Concerned American]

Tell us again how he isn’t coming after America’s guns. He wants to ban all semi-automatic weapons.

Critics erupt on Biden after ‘sick’ comment on semi-automatic gun purchases: 'Sheer ignorance'

Conservatives ripped into President Biden after he called semi-automatic gun purchases "sick" and reiterated his call to ban "assault weapons" in America.

www.foxnews.com

Especially when it is his knee-jerk reaction to a shooting where the weapon was a hand gun. He just wants to disarm the populace.

 

[Jaxson]

There's no "saying".
Absent rational factual answers to the questions asked of you, you don't have a meaningful solution to propose.

So again, lol, do you? Or are we even on the dunce caps?

 

[M14 Shooter]

So again, lol, do you? O

Thank you for making it clear you have no meaningful solution to propose.
And, thank you for making it clear I need waste no more time on you.
All your whining and crying about the children, for naught.

 

[Concerned American]

there aren't enough Republican votes to override it.

There are enough SCOTUS justices to over rule it though.

 

[Jaxson]

Thank you for making it clear you have no meaningful solution to propose.
And, than you for making it clear I need waste no more time on you.
All your whining and crying about the children, for naught.

So you know you have no solution and are happy to simply let children be shot at school on a regular basis. Get some help asap.

 

[Concerned American]

So you know you have no solution and are happy to simply let children be shot at school on a regular basis. Get some help asap.

The problem isn't the gun, moron. Maybe you ought to turn your attention to the lack of basic morality within YOUR so-called civilized society.

 

[M14 Shooter]

Especially when it is his knee-jerk reaction to a shooting where the weapon was a hand gun. He just wants to disarm the populace.

You are correct .
Never let a disaster - or the blood of dead children - to go to waste.

 

[M14 Shooter]

The problem isn't the gun, moron. Maybe you ought to turn your attention to the lack of basic morality within YOUR so-called civilized society.

He has no rational basis for any of his ideas, and thus, not worth your time.

 

[TNHarley]

Aww, look, junior wants to go around shooting everyone. How cute. lol

huh? What a stupid response.
You have already shown your ignorance. Why try to sound like a 4 year old with extra chromosomes?

 

[M14 Shooter]

huh? What a stupid response.
You have already shown your ignorance. Why try to sound like a 4 year old with extra chromosomes?

"Try"?

 

[Jaxson]

The problem isn't the gun, moron. Maybe you ought to turn your attention to the lack of basic morality within YOUR so-called civilized society.

 

[Jaxson]

He has no rational basis for any of his ideas, and thus, not worth your time.

Says the guy who has no plan WHATSOEVER!

 

[Winston]

You're wrong as usual
Miller ruled in order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment it must have a reasonable expectation for an efficient and effective militia and weapons in common use of the time and supplied by the citizen.

I love the smell of napalm in the morning. I don't think you have read Scalia's opinion at all. "Reasonable expectation for an efficient and effective militia", quoting Scalia

Read in isolation, Miller’s phrase “part of ordinary military equipment” could mean that only those weapons useful in warfare are protected. That would be a startling reading of the opinion, since it would mean that the National Firearms Act’s restrictions on machineguns (not challenged in Miller) might be unconstitutional, machineguns being useful in warfare in 1939.

Scalia bases his entire premise on the following phrase,

. We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.”

He even admits the shortcomings of that argument,

It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service—M-16 rifles and the like—may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.

Total horseshit. The founders were some smart ass people. Do you believe they created the Constitution, and the Bill of Rights, to always be interpreted in the lens of 1789 America? That is what Scalia is wanting to claim here and it is horseshit. "Modern developments have limited the degree"--in other words, we don't give a happy shit.

But now to the good stuff,

Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott 333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment, nothing in our opinion 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.

That right there complete negates the recent decision concerning New Yorks issuing of concealed weapons permits. A decision written by Thomas, who quite honestly, is bought and bossed, led around like a pig with a ring in his nose, by a fatass ugly shit white wife. He is way out of his element, in the deep end of the pool and his sorry ass can't even swim.

And that is the thing. The SCOTUS is now completely dysfunctional. When they review a case, it is not a matter of examining the issue, looking at precedent, constructing a legal diagnosis. It is about knowing what you want the ruling to be and constructing a path to get there. And yes, Scalia was an expert. But his opinions are so conflicted with one another that it is more than obvious that was what he was doing. But the current right wing contingent on the SCOTUS, they have to qualms about pushing the envelope even past where Scalia would go. Today we have a majority completely constructed by the Federalist Society. The entire court should be impeached, every damn one of them. We have a 50/50 senate. Work it out, find real jurists, not activists. We are at a critical moment in American History. A real tipping point if you will, and the SCOTUS stands at the center, an obstacle in the way of progress that will either be eliminated, or will destroy our Republic.

 

[Winston]

This nation has a Constitution and a Bill of Rights.

The Bill of Rights says the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. I shit you not. Go look it up. The individual right to keep and bear arms has been upheld by the Supreme Court in three recent court cases.

Most of theses "mass murders" you little Snowflakes are all butt hurt about are shootings among Black and Brown druggies, gang bangers and street thugs in Democrat controlled big city shitholes that already have (unconstitutional) strict gun control laws so anything you stupid Snowflakes want to do won't change a damn thing.

I am much more concerned about the loss of Liberty you stupid little Snowflakes want to do in order to further your filthy agenda to make the US a Socialist Shithole.

STFU with your racist bullshit. Almost all mass shootings are carried out by white cracker dumbshits with real mental problems. And while California is the number one state, that hell hole called Texas, red as can be, is number two. So again, STFU.

 

[Winston]

More parents killed school age children than rifles

Not fathers, I guarantee you that. Nine times out of ten, it is the mother or her damn boyfriend.