Do you notice how gun nuts never talk about any limits to gun ownership?

[Markle]

Should I prove to you, first, how many lives have been spared by denying private sales of hand grenades to the public?

Your desperation is duly noted. Hand grenades have never been part of the discussion. Please grow up and address the topic. If you cannot, please remain on the sideline.

Why, Markle, I am addressing the topic quite directly. The topic is the post by PolishPrince that Clinton's limiting some firearm sales was a total failure. All I am doing is asking how he measures that it was a total failure. For example, are these 1,000 people who are dead that Clinton assumed would be alive with this limitation? If so, could we get their names? I can't be held responsible if you can't follow a simple conversation.

Malarky, your post only addressed hand grenades.

The rest of this post doesn't even make any sense.

 

[pismoe]

Should I prove to you, first, how many lives have been spared by denying private sales of hand grenades to the public?

Your desperation is duly noted. Hand grenades have never been part of the discussion. Please grow up and address the topic. If you cannot, please remain on the sideline.

Why, Markle, I am addressing the topic quite directly. The topic is the post by PolishPrince that Clinton's limiting some firearm sales was a total failure. All I am doing is asking how he measures that it was a total failure. For example, are these 1,000 people who are dead that Clinton assumed would be alive with this limitation? If so, could we get their names? I can't be held responsible if you can't follow a simple conversation.

----------------------------- if talking assault weapons ban 'clinton' had no RIGHT to limit them . And 'gwb' was no better as he said that he would reauthorize the Ban if it had gotten to his desk .

 

[Vandalshandle]

Should I prove to you, first, how many lives have been spared by denying private sales of hand grenades to the public?

Your desperation is duly noted. Hand grenades have never been part of the discussion. Please grow up and address the topic. If you cannot, please remain on the sideline.

Why, Markle, I am addressing the topic quite directly. The topic is the post by PolishPrince that Clinton's limiting some firearm sales was a total failure. All I am doing is asking how he measures that it was a total failure. For example, are these 1,000 people who are dead that Clinton assumed would be alive with this limitation? If so, could we get their names? I can't be held responsible if you can't follow a simple conversation.

Malarky, your post only addressed hand grenades.

The rest of this post doesn't even make any sense.

Actually, my post made every bit as much sense as the post to which I was replying, post 514, from BluesMan, who asked me to prove that Clinton's arms limitation was a success, which would be equivalent to asking me to prove whose life was spared as a result of Clinton's arms limitation. Do I have to keep explaining everything to you?.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any fucker carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Dude the Second Amendment gives us the right to walk armed.

And exactly where does it say that the Federal Government gives you that right? Or does it say that the Federal Government cannot infringe on your rights. But according to the 10th and the 14th amendment, the States can regulate how and when you can do it. The 2nd only applies to the Federals, not the states. The Feds have only gone as far as saying that you can only have the weapon for the defense of your home as long as you adhere to the State and lower government laws. Everything else is up to the State and lower governments laws. Again, the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Government just like all the other first 10 amendments. They limit the Federal Government's powers. If you want this changed, rewrite the 2nd amendment to be more clear and to read what you "Think" it means.

 

[Slyhunter]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any fucker carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Dude the Second Amendment gives us the right to walk armed.

And exactly where does it say that the Federal Government gives you that right? Or does it say that the Federal Government cannot infringe on your rights. But according to the 10th and the 14th amendment, the States can regulate how and when you can do it. The 2nd only applies to the Federals, not the states. The Feds have only gone as far as saying that you can only have the weapon for the defense of your home as long as you adhere to the State and lower government laws. Everything else is up to the State and lower governments laws. Again, the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Government just like all the other first 10 amendments. They limit the Federal Government's powers. If you want this changed, rewrite the 2nd amendment to be more clear and to read what you "Think" it means.

So you're saying the State can take away your right of Free Speech, or freedom of practicing your religion?

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

And exactly where does it say that the Federal Government gives you that right? Or does it say that the Federal Government cannot infringe on your rights. But according to the 10th and the 14th amendment, the States can regulate how and when you can do it. The 2nd only applies to the Federals, not the states. The Feds have only gone as far as saying that you can only have the weapon for the defense of your home as long as you adhere to the State and lower government laws. Everything else is up to the State and lower governments laws. Again, the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Government just like all the other first 10 amendments. They limit the Federal Government's powers. If you want this changed, rewrite the 2nd amendment to be more clear and to read what you "Think" it means.

This was true in the mid-1800s. You are ignoring the very clumsy and overly broad consequences of the 14th Amendment.

Read properly, no government can regulate ANY firearms.

We need to amend.

.

 

[Markle]

Actually, my post made every bit as much sense as the post to which I was replying, post 514, from BluesMan, who asked me to prove that Clinton's arms limitation was a success, which would be equivalent to asking me to prove whose life was spared as a result of Clinton's arms limitation. Do I have to keep explaining everything to you?.

If you were clear, you would not have to translate your wild posts.

 

[Vandalshandle]

And exactly where does it say that the Federal Government gives you that right? Or does it say that the Federal Government cannot infringe on your rights. But according to the 10th and the 14th amendment, the States can regulate how and when you can do it. The 2nd only applies to the Federals, not the states. The Feds have only gone as far as saying that you can only have the weapon for the defense of your home as long as you adhere to the State and lower government laws. Everything else is up to the State and lower governments laws. Again, the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Government just like all the other first 10 amendments. They limit the Federal Government's powers. If you want this changed, rewrite the 2nd amendment to be more clear and to read what you "Think" it means.

This was true in the mid-1800s. You are ignoring the very clumsy and overly broad consequences of the 14th Amendment.

Read properly, no government can regulate ANY firearms.

We need to amend.

.

I hope that they don't find out about this in San Quinton!

 

[Blues Man]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any fucker carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Its a slippery slope, billy.

Remember back in the 1990's, when Slick Willy instituted a 10 year draconian style ban on certain firearms?

It did , BTW, fail completely to eliminate Violence in America, so it wasn't renewed.


But the point is that the ink wasn't even dry on the new law when Gun Control Freaks were pressing for even more wild gun control.

The libs negotiate in bad faith, they are unwilling to accept any freedom, and just take any acquiescence as a sign of weakness.

So, you are sure that no instances if violence were prevented by that arms limitation? I would be interested in your source on that.

If you are sure there are why don't you post some sources that say as such?

Should I prove to you, first, how many lives have been spared by denying private sales of hand grenades to the public?

Sure go ahead in a thread about hand grenades

But since you are convinced gun laws have prevented criminals from committing crimea with guns it should be easy to prove right?

Gun laws have no effect on crime because the people willing to commit crimes don't care about gun laws as we can see since most crimes committed with guns are perpetrated by people who have obtained those firearms illegally.

Do illegal gun owners commit most gun crime?

 

[Blues Man]

Should I prove to you, first, how many lives have been spared by denying private sales of hand grenades to the public?

Your desperation is duly noted. Hand grenades have never been part of the discussion. Please grow up and address the topic. If you cannot, please remain on the sideline.

Why, Markle, I am addressing the topic quite directly. The topic is the post by PolishPrince that Clinton's limiting some firearm sales was a total failure. All I am doing is asking how he measures that it was a total failure. For example, are these 1,000 people who are dead that Clinton assumed would be alive with this limitation? If so, could we get their names? I can't be held responsible if you can't follow a simple conversation.

The fact is the federal assault weapon ban was found to have no effect on crime or murder rates so it was allowed to sunset.

And the FBI stats prove the point. Rifles of any kind are used in less than 2% of all murders and those rifles with the plastic doodad add ons account for less than 1% of all murders

Knowing this how can you think banning a rifle with plastic pistol grips (AKA an "assault rifle") will have any effect on crime?

 

[Blues Man]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any fucker carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Dude the Second Amendment gives us the right to walk armed.

And exactly where does it say that the Federal Government gives you that right? Or does it say that the Federal Government cannot infringe on your rights. But according to the 10th and the 14th amendment, the States can regulate how and when you can do it. The 2nd only applies to the Federals, not the states. The Feds have only gone as far as saying that you can only have the weapon for the defense of your home as long as you adhere to the State and lower government laws. Everything else is up to the State and lower governments laws. Again, the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Government just like all the other first 10 amendments. They limit the Federal Government's powers. If you want this changed, rewrite the 2nd amendment to be more clear and to read what you "Think" it means.

You need to get a refund on your Constitutional law degree.

The Amendments to the Constitution do not only apply to the federal governemnt.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any fucker carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Dude the Second Amendment gives us the right to walk armed.

And exactly where does it say that the Federal Government gives you that right? Or does it say that the Federal Government cannot infringe on your rights. But according to the 10th and the 14th amendment, the States can regulate how and when you can do it. The 2nd only applies to the Federals, not the states. The Feds have only gone as far as saying that you can only have the weapon for the defense of your home as long as you adhere to the State and lower government laws. Everything else is up to the State and lower governments laws. Again, the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Government just like all the other first 10 amendments. They limit the Federal Government's powers. If you want this changed, rewrite the 2nd amendment to be more clear and to read what you "Think" it means.

So you're saying the State can take away your right of Free Speech, or freedom of practicing your religion?

Those are expressly written in the first amendment. And yes, they can limit those. Like yelling "Fire" in a crowded auditorium when no fire exists. It's not absolute. Or by any number of things that is called "Swatting". When your freedom of Speech becomes a danger to the public health then the government can, will and does limit it even though the 1st amendment says what it does. The State has that right and obligation.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

And exactly where does it say that the Federal Government gives you that right? Or does it say that the Federal Government cannot infringe on your rights. But according to the 10th and the 14th amendment, the States can regulate how and when you can do it. The 2nd only applies to the Federals, not the states. The Feds have only gone as far as saying that you can only have the weapon for the defense of your home as long as you adhere to the State and lower government laws. Everything else is up to the State and lower governments laws. Again, the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Government just like all the other first 10 amendments. They limit the Federal Government's powers. If you want this changed, rewrite the 2nd amendment to be more clear and to read what you "Think" it means.

This was true in the mid-1800s. You are ignoring the very clumsy and overly broad consequences of the 14th Amendment.

Read properly, no government can regulate ANY firearms.

We need to amend.

.

Oh, I agree we need to amend. But we also need to amend the 2nd as well. You can't have one without the other.

 

[Blues Man]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any fucker carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Dude the Second Amendment gives us the right to walk armed.

And exactly where does it say that the Federal Government gives you that right? Or does it say that the Federal Government cannot infringe on your rights. But according to the 10th and the 14th amendment, the States can regulate how and when you can do it. The 2nd only applies to the Federals, not the states. The Feds have only gone as far as saying that you can only have the weapon for the defense of your home as long as you adhere to the State and lower government laws. Everything else is up to the State and lower governments laws. Again, the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Government just like all the other first 10 amendments. They limit the Federal Government's powers. If you want this changed, rewrite the 2nd amendment to be more clear and to read what you "Think" it means.

So you're saying the State can take away your right of Free Speech, or freedom of practicing your religion?

Those are expressly written in the first amendment. And yes, they can limit those. Like yelling "Fire" in a crowded auditorium when no fire exists. It's not absolute. Or by any number of things that is called "Swatting". When your freedom of Speech becomes a danger to the public health then the government can, will and does limit it even though the 1st amendment says what it does. The State has that right and obligation.

But there have been court cases that allowed that. But tll me where is your proof that anyone merely possessing legally obtained firearms endangers the public?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any fucker carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Dude the Second Amendment gives us the right to walk armed.

And exactly where does it say that the Federal Government gives you that right? Or does it say that the Federal Government cannot infringe on your rights. But according to the 10th and the 14th amendment, the States can regulate how and when you can do it. The 2nd only applies to the Federals, not the states. The Feds have only gone as far as saying that you can only have the weapon for the defense of your home as long as you adhere to the State and lower government laws. Everything else is up to the State and lower governments laws. Again, the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Government just like all the other first 10 amendments. They limit the Federal Government's powers. If you want this changed, rewrite the 2nd amendment to be more clear and to read what you "Think" it means.

You need to get a refund on your Constitutional law degree.

The Amendments to the Constitution do not only apply to the federal governemnt.

Funny how the Federal Courts agree with me since I am using them as my sources. You are using conspiracy sites as yours. Guess which one will continue to count.

 

[Blues Man]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any fucker carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Dude the Second Amendment gives us the right to walk armed.

And exactly where does it say that the Federal Government gives you that right? Or does it say that the Federal Government cannot infringe on your rights. But according to the 10th and the 14th amendment, the States can regulate how and when you can do it. The 2nd only applies to the Federals, not the states. The Feds have only gone as far as saying that you can only have the weapon for the defense of your home as long as you adhere to the State and lower government laws. Everything else is up to the State and lower governments laws. Again, the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Government just like all the other first 10 amendments. They limit the Federal Government's powers. If you want this changed, rewrite the 2nd amendment to be more clear and to read what you "Think" it means.

You need to get a refund on your Constitutional law degree.

The Amendments to the Constitution do not only apply to the federal governemnt.

Funny how the Federal Courts agree with me since I am using them as my sources. You are using conspiracy sites as yours. Guess which one will continue to count.

What sites are those?

I haven't posted a link to any such site
But I see you are still fabricating things I have said or done and then arguing against that fabrication.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any fucker carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Dude the Second Amendment gives us the right to walk armed.

And exactly where does it say that the Federal Government gives you that right? Or does it say that the Federal Government cannot infringe on your rights. But according to the 10th and the 14th amendment, the States can regulate how and when you can do it. The 2nd only applies to the Federals, not the states. The Feds have only gone as far as saying that you can only have the weapon for the defense of your home as long as you adhere to the State and lower government laws. Everything else is up to the State and lower governments laws. Again, the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Government just like all the other first 10 amendments. They limit the Federal Government's powers. If you want this changed, rewrite the 2nd amendment to be more clear and to read what you "Think" it means.

So you're saying the State can take away your right of Free Speech, or freedom of practicing your religion?

Those are expressly written in the first amendment. And yes, they can limit those. Like yelling "Fire" in a crowded auditorium when no fire exists. It's not absolute. Or by any number of things that is called "Swatting". When your freedom of Speech becomes a danger to the public health then the government can, will and does limit it even though the 1st amendment says what it does. The State has that right and obligation.

But there have been court cases that allowed that. But tll me where is your proof that anyone merely possessing legally obtained firearms endangers the public?

There has been NO court cases that allow Swatting. In fact, there are laws against it. No Court has allowed yelling Fire in a crowed Auditorium when there is no fire, there are laws against that. I don't know in what twisted universe you live in. We just passed the Red Flag Law in Colorado where you can have a legally obtained firearm and be deemed a danger to the public and have your firearm temporarily confiscated either by the authorities or have them transferred to another family member. Not quite as sinister as some would scream at the top of their lungs. There are many instances where you can become a danger to those around you and have legally obtained weapons. There are way too many preventable deaths each day. Nutcases can buy guns too until they are deemed to be nutcases. And the miraculously become Democrats when they use then by your standards. By my standards, they were always nutcases and might have been stopped before hand. But to you, only Democrats should be disarmed and do all the illegal acts and all the Democrats have all the illegal firearms. NO wonder the majority of us don't take you seriously.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Are they cool with the prospect of people open carrying fully automatic wherever they go? After all, it’s the second amendment! Why is this not a thing?! Surely at GOP conventions those tough republican politicians would feel safe with knowing any fucker carrying a weapon around them is allowed to. Republicans’ idea of limiting gun violence is more guns after all. More guns the better!

If they do draw the line at these scenarios, then don’t they see how ridiculous it is to say any from of gun control is unconstitutional? Who are republicans to arbitrarily decide what level of gun laws are acceptable but democrats can’t? Hell, even their St. Scalia said gun control measures were constitutional.

Do you notice how kids have freedom of speech? You may pretend they don’t because what they choose to say can be punished by an adult in charge, but adults can be punished for what they say as well by adults in charge. After all, you can lose your job if you find yourself catcalling that new hot intern everyday.

All that matters when it comes to the first amendment and kids is that they can’t be charged with a crime for their speech. Now all this being said, are toddlers being denied their bill of rights by not being able to carry a gun?

Dude the Second Amendment gives us the right to walk armed.

And exactly where does it say that the Federal Government gives you that right? Or does it say that the Federal Government cannot infringe on your rights. But according to the 10th and the 14th amendment, the States can regulate how and when you can do it. The 2nd only applies to the Federals, not the states. The Feds have only gone as far as saying that you can only have the weapon for the defense of your home as long as you adhere to the State and lower government laws. Everything else is up to the State and lower governments laws. Again, the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Government just like all the other first 10 amendments. They limit the Federal Government's powers. If you want this changed, rewrite the 2nd amendment to be more clear and to read what you "Think" it means.

You need to get a refund on your Constitutional law degree.

The Amendments to the Constitution do not only apply to the federal governemnt.

Funny how the Federal Courts agree with me since I am using them as my sources. You are using conspiracy sites as yours. Guess which one will continue to count.

What sites are those?

I haven't posted a link to any such site
But I see you are still fabricating things I have said or done and then arguing against that fabrication.

Your ideas had to come from somewhere. They didn't come from any sites that quote legal law. I guess I know where they came from so I give you the prize for it. Enjoy. And you have a nice day.

 

[Blues Man]

Dude the Second Amendment gives us the right to walk armed.

And exactly where does it say that the Federal Government gives you that right? Or does it say that the Federal Government cannot infringe on your rights. But according to the 10th and the 14th amendment, the States can regulate how and when you can do it. The 2nd only applies to the Federals, not the states. The Feds have only gone as far as saying that you can only have the weapon for the defense of your home as long as you adhere to the State and lower government laws. Everything else is up to the State and lower governments laws. Again, the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Government just like all the other first 10 amendments. They limit the Federal Government's powers. If you want this changed, rewrite the 2nd amendment to be more clear and to read what you "Think" it means.

So you're saying the State can take away your right of Free Speech, or freedom of practicing your religion?

Those are expressly written in the first amendment. And yes, they can limit those. Like yelling "Fire" in a crowded auditorium when no fire exists. It's not absolute. Or by any number of things that is called "Swatting". When your freedom of Speech becomes a danger to the public health then the government can, will and does limit it even though the 1st amendment says what it does. The State has that right and obligation.

But there have been court cases that allowed that. But tll me where is your proof that anyone merely possessing legally obtained firearms endangers the public?

There has been NO court cases that allow Swatting. In fact, there are laws against it. No Court has allowed yelling Fire in a crowed Auditorium when there is no fire, there are laws against that. I don't know in what twisted universe you live in. We just passed the Red Flag Law in Colorado where you can have a legally obtained firearm and be deemed a danger to the public and have your firearm temporarily confiscated either by the authorities or have them transferred to another family member. Not quite as sinister as some would scream at the top of their lungs. There are many instances where you can become a danger to those around you and have legally obtained weapons. There are way too many preventable deaths each day. Nutcases can buy guns too until they are deemed to be nutcases. And the miraculously become Democrats when they use then by your standards. By my standards, they were always nutcases and might have been stopped before hand. But to you, only Democrats should be disarmed and do all the illegal acts and all the Democrats have all the illegal firearms. NO wonder the majority of us don't take you seriously.

Where did I ever mention swatting?

But filing false police reports is illegal, inciting a riot is illegal, because they pose a public health risk


No tell me how the legal ownership of firearms poses a public health risk when you know as well as I do that a minuscule fraction of people who legally obtain guns will ever commit any crime. And then tell me how a plastic pistol grip on a gun endangers the public.

It's Time to Stop Using the 'Fire in a Crowded Theater' Quote

FYI it's not illegal to merely yell fire in a crowded theater because if there was a fire no person yelling fire would not be tried and convicted.
And if someone yell fire in a theater and is ignored he will not be arrested tried and convicted.

In any such case a result of imminent danger or incitement to illegal actions must be proven.

So now knowing this if you want to deny a person his second amendment rights , it must be proven he is an imminent danger to the public.

And we already have federal laws that deny firearm ownership to such people.

 

[Blues Man]

Dude the Second Amendment gives us the right to walk armed.

And exactly where does it say that the Federal Government gives you that right? Or does it say that the Federal Government cannot infringe on your rights. But according to the 10th and the 14th amendment, the States can regulate how and when you can do it. The 2nd only applies to the Federals, not the states. The Feds have only gone as far as saying that you can only have the weapon for the defense of your home as long as you adhere to the State and lower government laws. Everything else is up to the State and lower governments laws. Again, the 2nd amendment only applies to the Federal Government just like all the other first 10 amendments. They limit the Federal Government's powers. If you want this changed, rewrite the 2nd amendment to be more clear and to read what you "Think" it means.

You need to get a refund on your Constitutional law degree.

The Amendments to the Constitution do not only apply to the federal governemnt.

Funny how the Federal Courts agree with me since I am using them as my sources. You are using conspiracy sites as yours. Guess which one will continue to count.

What sites are those?

I haven't posted a link to any such site
But I see you are still fabricating things I have said or done and then arguing against that fabrication.

Your ideas had to come from somewhere. They didn't come from any sites that quote legal law. I guess I know where they came from so I give you the prize for it. Enjoy. And you have a nice day.
View attachment 255240

Your ideas have to come from someone else because you are incapable of independent thought.

So if you are going to tell me I get my info from conspiracy web sites you should post those web sites and then show where I used quotes from those web sites.

The fact that you make up things I post and then argue against those false claims tell me you have nothing to offer but made up shit

And it seems you still aren't smart enough to communicate without picture books.

Poor retarded Corky.