Even After Latest Attack, Liberals Refuse to Support Vehicle Control

[Contumacious]

The government can NOT regulate abortion, guns, bazookas, and/or vehicles.

Of course they can. Perfectly Constitutional.

No it isn't, no matter what the Supreme Court says.

As Bripat said. As recently revealed, and blatantly obvious through the entirety of the current administration, the Supreme Court doesn't actually care about interpreting the constitution, only about advancing their own political agendas. If they cared about the constitution, they wouldn't have let Obama violate it 64 times.

That is correct .

Four fascist liberal "justices" who dissented in Heller concluded that the right to bear arms is a "NEW RIGHT"

Fascist "justice" Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently stated that she is ready to OVERRULE Heller and Citizens United.


.

 

[Synthaholic]

You're right.

Of course I'm right. I usually am.

Now show me where in the Constitution bullets are protected.

 

[P@triot]

Hey you ignorant little fuck - if (and I quote) "a goddamn gun only real focus is to KILL" do law enforcement officers carry them?!? Are they paid assassins?!?

You literally get dumber with each post.

In case they have to kill. Duh!

You have no business calling anyone else dumb, retard.

Why would a police officer ever need to kill, you mental midget?!? They have a numbers advantage, they have handcuffs, mace, tactical batons, and even major non-lethal weapons like tasers which completely and totally incapacitate people.

Holy shit, you ARE a retard!

If someone was running toward a police officer with a machete in one hand and a can of pepper spray that shoots a stream up to 15 feet away in the other none of those items would be effective.




Now say something else stupid.

A taser would be the perfect solution in that scenario. Plus - the other officers could easily take down the assailant from behind. You're just a young kid who jerks of to homosexual porn in the bedroom of his parents home. I come from a long line of law enforcement and even would go on patrol with my dad multiple times per month when I was younger. I've forgotten more about law enforcement than you will ever know junior. Don't even sit there and act like some sort of "expert" on this issue.

If guns were "designed to kill" then law enforcement wouldn't carry them because law enforcement does not exist to kill. Like anything else (mace, tasers, knives, etc.) it's a strictly defensive tool which can be used for evil. Just like a truck can. Over 80 deaths, bitch. You mad, bro?

 

[Synthaholic]

The government can NOT regulate abortion, guns, bazookas, and/or vehicles.

Of course they can. Perfectly Constitutional.

No it isn't, no matter what the Supreme Court says.

As Bripat said. As recently revealed, and blatantly obvious through the entirety of the current administration, the Supreme Court doesn't actually care about interpreting the constitution, only about advancing their own political agendas. If they cared about the constitution, they wouldn't have let Obama violate it 64 times.

I can see why liberals here get so frustrated with you - you're literally a billion times more educated than these high school dropouts and societal parasites...

This is the first time I've ever seen that member. He/she only joined in May.

I would love to know where she gets this 64 times.

Is that like a Joe McCarthy thing? "There are 64 Communists in the Congress...."

 

[Contumacious]

You're right.

Of course I'm right. I usually am.

Now show me where in the Constitution bullets are protected.

Constitution and NINTH AMENDMENT.


.

 

[P@triot]

You're right.

Of course I'm right. I usually am.

Now show me where in the Constitution bullets are protected.

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Arms are not just muskets genius. Arms include guns, cannons, bullets, RPG's, grenades, and a lot more. Just ask an arms dealer, junior. Any other dumb questions you'd like me to answer for you?

 

[Synthaholic]

WE WILL NOT BE DISARMED.

You will if it's decided you will. Or you'll be dead.

No one will care.

 

[Synthaholic]

The government can NOT regulate abortion, guns, bazookas, and/or vehicles.

Of course they can. Perfectly Constitutional.

No it isn't, no matter what the Supreme Court says.

As Bripat said. As recently revealed, and blatantly obvious through the entirety of the current administration, the Supreme Court doesn't actually care about interpreting the constitution, only about advancing their own political agendas. If they cared about the constitution, they wouldn't have let Obama violate it 64 times.

That is correct .

Four fascist liberal "justices" who dissented in Heller concluded that the right to bear arms is a "NEW RIGHT"

Fascist "justice" Ruth Bader Ginsburg recently stated that she is ready to OVERRULE Heller and Citizens United.


.

Scalia stated in Heller that firearms can be regulated.

So sorry that chaps your butt.

 

[P@triot]

You're right.

Of course I'm right. I usually am.

Now show me where in the Constitution bullets are protected.

Constitution and NINTH AMENDMENT.

Poor Synthy....not the brightest bulb in the chandelier, is she? Not only does the U.S. Constitution specifically cover all armaments, but her logic is like saying "the 1st Amendment doesn't cover the internet so you can share your views on USMB".

 

[Synthaholic]

Hey you ignorant little fuck - if (and I quote) "a goddamn gun only real focus is to KILL" do law enforcement officers carry them?!? Are they paid assassins?!?

You literally get dumber with each post.

In case they have to kill. Duh!

You have no business calling anyone else dumb, retard.

Why would a police officer ever need to kill, you mental midget?!? They have a numbers advantage, they have handcuffs, mace, tactical batons, and even major non-lethal weapons like tasers which completely and totally incapacitate people.

Holy shit, you ARE a retard!

If someone was running toward a police officer with a machete in one hand and a can of pepper spray that shoots a stream up to 15 feet away in the other none of those items would be effective.




Now say something else stupid.

A taser would be the perfect solution in that scenario. Plus - the other officers could easily take down the assailant from behind.

Who says there are always other officers around? Goddamn, you're stupid.

And tasers do not shoot farther than 15 feet. GODDAMN, you're a fucking retard!

 

[P@triot]

WE WILL NOT BE DISARMED.

You will if it's decided you will. Or you'll be dead.

No one will care.

Actually.....you'll be dead sweetie. You're the disarmed little coward - scared of firearms. We are locked & loaded. Military, law enforcement, etc. all agree with us.

 

[Synthaholic]

You're right.

Of course I'm right. I usually am.

Now show me where in the Constitution bullets are protected.

Constitution and NINTH AMENDMENT.


.

The Ninth Amendment is relevant to interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Second.

 

[P@triot]

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Hey you ignorant little fuck - if (and I quote) "a goddamn gun only real focus is to KILL" do law enforcement officers carry them?!? Are they paid assassins?!?

You literally get dumber with each post.

In case they have to kill. Duh!

You have no business calling anyone else dumb, retard.

Why would a police officer ever need to kill, you mental midget?!? They have a numbers advantage, they have handcuffs, mace, tactical batons, and even major non-lethal weapons like tasers which completely and totally incapacitate people.

Holy shit, you ARE a retard!

If someone was running toward a police officer with a machete in one hand and a can of pepper spray that shoots a stream up to 15 feet away in the other none of those items would be effective.




Now say something else stupid.

A taser would be the perfect solution in that scenario. Plus - the other officers could easily take down the assailant from behind.

Who says there are always other officers around? Goddamn, you're stupid.

And tasers do not shoot farther than 15 feet. GODDAMN, you're a fucking retard!

Um....dumb ass....you tase them at 10 feet. A machete doesn't reach that far...

 

[Contumacious]

You're right.

Of course I'm right. I usually am.

Now show me where in the Constitution bullets are protected.

Constitution and NINTH AMENDMENT.


.

The Ninth Amendment is relevant to interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Second.

LINK?


.

 

[P@triot]

Now show me where in the Constitution bullets are protected.

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It just hit me - little Synthy here doesn't know that "arms" is short for armaments and doesn't know what armaments means.


ar·ma·ment
ˈärməmənt/
noun
plural noun: armaments

1. military weapons and equipment.
   "chemical weapons and other unconventional armaments"
   synonyms: arms, weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, munitions, matériel, hardware
   "a shortage of armaments"
   • the process of equipping military forces for war.
   • archaic
     a military force equipped for war.

 

[Synthaholic]

You're right.

Of course I'm right. I usually am.

Now show me where in the Constitution bullets are protected.

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Arms are not just muskets genius. Arms include guns, cannons, bullets, RPG's, grenades, and a lot more. Just ask an arms dealer, junior. Any other dumb questions you'd like me to answer for you?

Then why didn't they just make that the 2nd, in it's entirety?

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

They didn't. They talked about it being regulated.

And bullets are not arms. They are ammunition. Neither are grenades. They are explosives.

Don't you know anything?

 

[P@triot]

You're right.

Of course I'm right. I usually am.

Now show me where in the Constitution bullets are protected.

Constitution and NINTH AMENDMENT.

The Ninth Amendment is relevant to interpretation of the Fourteenth Amendment, not the Second.

What an absurd and nonsensical thing to say (out of desperation). Each amendment stands on its own and in no way "interprets" other amendments. Then again - we shouldn't be surprised considering this comes from someone who didn't know what "arms" are.

The 9th Amendment literally has nothing to do with the 14th Amendment. Stupid here clearly has no idea what either says.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

You know that the 2nd is an 'amendment', don't you? Maybe you should look up that word, because you're babbling.

So if they could amend the Constitution to include a right to bear arms, they can amend it to take it away.

They can't even compromise on basic things such as balancing the budget or taxation. What makes you think anybody today can amend the Constitution? Especially how politically divided we are as a nation.

 

[P@triot]

And bullets are not arms. They are ammunition. Neither are grenades. They are explosives.

Really? Are you sure about that Synthy?!?

"the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

It just hit me - little Synthy here doesn't know that "arms" is short for armaments and doesn't know what armaments means.


ar·ma·ment
ˈärməmənt/
noun
plural noun: armaments

1. military weapons and equipment.
   "chemical weapons and other unconventional armaments"
   synonyms: arms, weapons, weaponry, firearms, guns, ordnance, artillery, munitions, matériel, hardware
   "a shortage of armaments"
   • the process of equipping military forces for war.
   • archaic
     a military force equipped for war.

 

[Contumacious]

You're right.

Of course I'm right. I usually am.

Now show me where in the Constitution bullets are protected.

"the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

Arms are not just muskets genius. Arms include guns, cannons, bullets, RPG's, grenades, and a lot more. Just ask an arms dealer, junior. Any other dumb questions you'd like me to answer for you?

Then why didn't they just make that the 2nd, in it's entirety?

"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"

They didn't. They talked about it being regulated.

And bullets are not arms. They are ammunition. Neither are grenades. They are explosives.

Don't you know anything?

DINGLE BERRY

FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME --THE 2A CONFERS NO REGULATORY AUTHORITY - NONE


I go further, and affirm that bills of rights, in the sense and in the extent in which they are contended for, are not only unnecessary in the proposed constitution, but would even be dangerous. They would contain various exceptions to powers which are not granted; and on this very account, would afford a colourable pretext to claim more than were granted. For why declare that things shall not be done which there is no power to do? Why for instance, should it be said, that the liberty of the press shall not be restrained, when no power is given by which restrictions may be imposed? I will not contend that such a provision would confer a regulating power; but it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretence for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason, that the constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority, which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication, that a power to prescribe proper regulations concerning it, was intended to be vested in the national government. This may serve as a specimen of the numerous handles which would be given to the doctrine of constructive powers, by the indulgence of an injudicious zeal for bills of rights.

Alexander Hamilton