Leo123
Diamond Member
- Aug 26, 2017
- 30,673
- 23,585
- 2,915
Lawful doesn't translate to moral you know.This is a lie – it’s Republicans who love their bans on things lawful, such as same-sex marriage and social media’s freedom of association.
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Lawful doesn't translate to moral you know.This is a lie – it’s Republicans who love their bans on things lawful, such as same-sex marriage and social media’s freedom of association.
Lawful doesn't translate to moral you know.This is a lie – it’s Republicans who love their bans on things lawful, such as same-sex marriage and social media’s freedom of association.
Yep, laws based on relative morality do society no good.Yep, that's part of the commie plan, force the morals of Sodom and Gomorrah on the US. To them government is god.
A total ignorant dumdass.
OKTexas
You are a blatant liar and you have no evidence of that.
This is the lies etc which continue to give me opportunities to rip it up you.
You are so paranoid about communists, you are fabricating complete lies.
But if you have proof of all you say, produce it now or shut your big ignorant hate filled mouth. You're a dickhead.
Correct.There are two chains of thought for the 2nd amendment. One involves the people as members of the militia, giving the right toward that purpose, and that the 2nd applies to the individual.I personally believe the founding fathers would be horrified that every whack-job in the country has access to weapons that can empty out an entire theater in a few moments.
The militia idea would translate to allowing people to possess weapons of war, such as machine guns. While the individual right can actually limit the weapons a person possess to those needed by the individual.
The assault weapon question, like the judge who overturned the california assault weapons ban using a strange legal argument. That people can't be prevented from owning assault weapons because of their popularity and general usage. Had states banned them more effectively, thus preventing their popularity, the ban would have stood.
Which is why conservatives have come to loathe the Heller decision, codifying the individual right paradigm.
Pursuant to that paradigm, the individual right exists to facilitate the use of firearms for personal self-defense, unconnected to militia service – and the types of weapons that might be used by a militia.
That’s why the district court in the California AWB case made reference to the Swiss army knife, military in origin but now in common use by civilians having nothing to do with militia or military service – just like the AR 15.
What is an assault rifle and how does it differ from a regular rifle?
One is designed to kill 20 people in 10 seconds and the other one isn't.
One is designed for military use and warfare, the other one isn't.
Any other incredibly stupid questions?
Damn, but you areYes, you can get a permit for concealed carry in New York. You might want to hire a lawyer, and you need to provide a valid reason, like carrying large amounts of cash or valuables, a credible threat, or being famous.Yep,So, no city bans all guns You can't produce a single politician or even poster here, that advocates banning all guns. In short, you are full of shit.Great, then you should have no problem naming the city, and providing the ordinance, that bans ALL guns. I'll wait.Show one person, any one person, that has advocated the outright banning of all guns.One cannot reason with dishonest liars, which is who conservatives are.No one advocates for ‘confiscating’ guns.
No measures have been introduced to ‘confiscate’ guns – the notion is a rightwing lie and more baseless demagoguery from conservatives.
Pretending for a second that you aren't for banning guns. You are flat out lying when you say your party isn't out to do that. And we both know if/when they do, you will be silent.
Democrats are stupid people who think everyone else is as stupid as you are
Conservatives lie about gun ‘bans’ and gun ‘confiscation’ that never come about.
Indeed, for eight years when President Obama was in office conservatives lied about guns being ‘confiscated.’
Eight years later not one gun ‘confiscated.’
Conservatives lying about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscation’ is just more of their tedious fearmongering and demagoguery.
Explain how you get to ignore all the Democrats who say they are for outright banning guns on the board and nationally in the party
Democrats already ban guns in almost every major US city. You didn't know that? Seriously?
Where would Democrats stop? Tell me what we could do today where Democrats would be happy and if anyone went further than Democrats would be on the pro-gun right side and stay there
Seriously? San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Boston, LA, Seattle, Minneapolis, Detroit, Philadelphia, DC all virtually ban guns
So you believe you can get a gun say in New York and carry it to defend yourself. You really believe that?
New York City Concealed Carry Gun Laws | USCCA CCW Reciprocity Map
Last Updated 05/18/2021. New York City Permits are valid throughout NY State. Learn about New York City gun laws, permits & reciprocity map.www.usconcealedcarry.com
That only says there is the existence of a NY carry permit, not that you can get one.
What are you claiming exactly? As long as NY issues one permit then guns aren't illegal there and Democrats didn't ban guns?
Just FYI I lived in NY.
A valid reason does not include
- It's your constitutional right
- You want to be able to defend your family and yourself
- Someone is trying to kill you
You actually would have to prove the third one for it to work. Like you'd have to provide threatening letters.
Yes, for all practical purposes guns are banned in NY. You're a liar and a racist
You are about the most disingenuous, dishonest, unintelligent, and uninformed TROLL I have ever came across. In this thread, THIS VERY THREAD, you claim to own all sorts of guns, being as you were the oldest on both sides of the family, well many guns were left to you. Now, those same guns are practically illegal. Yep, for all practical purposes guns are banned in New York. I mean what total horseshit.Yes, you can get a permit for concealed carry in New York. You might want to hire a lawyer, and you need to provide a valid reason, like carrying large amounts of cash or valuables, a credible threat, or being famous.Yep,So, no city bans all guns You can't produce a single politician or even poster here, that advocates banning all guns. In short, you are full of shit.Great, then you should have no problem naming the city, and providing the ordinance, that bans ALL guns. I'll wait.Show one person, any one person, that has advocated the outright banning of all guns.One cannot reason with dishonest liars, which is who conservatives are.No one advocates for ‘confiscating’ guns.
No measures have been introduced to ‘confiscate’ guns – the notion is a rightwing lie and more baseless demagoguery from conservatives.
Pretending for a second that you aren't for banning guns. You are flat out lying when you say your party isn't out to do that. And we both know if/when they do, you will be silent.
Democrats are stupid people who think everyone else is as stupid as you are
Conservatives lie about gun ‘bans’ and gun ‘confiscation’ that never come about.
Indeed, for eight years when President Obama was in office conservatives lied about guns being ‘confiscated.’
Eight years later not one gun ‘confiscated.’
Conservatives lying about ‘bans’ and ‘confiscation’ is just more of their tedious fearmongering and demagoguery.
Explain how you get to ignore all the Democrats who say they are for outright banning guns on the board and nationally in the party
Democrats already ban guns in almost every major US city. You didn't know that? Seriously?
Where would Democrats stop? Tell me what we could do today where Democrats would be happy and if anyone went further than Democrats would be on the pro-gun right side and stay there
Seriously? San Francisco, New York, Chicago, Boston, LA, Seattle, Minneapolis, Detroit, Philadelphia, DC all virtually ban guns
So you believe you can get a gun say in New York and carry it to defend yourself. You really believe that?
New York City Concealed Carry Gun Laws | USCCA CCW Reciprocity Map
Last Updated 05/18/2021. New York City Permits are valid throughout NY State. Learn about New York City gun laws, permits & reciprocity map.www.usconcealedcarry.com
That only says there is the existence of a NY carry permit, not that you can get one.
What are you claiming exactly? As long as NY issues one permit then guns aren't illegal there and Democrats didn't ban guns?
Just FYI I lived in NY.
A valid reason does not include
- It's your constitutional right
- You want to be able to defend your family and yourself
- Someone is trying to kill you
You actually would have to prove the third one for it to work. Like you'd have to provide threatening letters.
Yes, for all practical purposes guns are banned in NY. You're a liar and a racist
OH so, if others' relative morality says it's OK to steal or murder, why that's just their 'right'.......Right?You're right but your morals have no right to interfere in others freedoms.
The second amendment has always been about the militia. And no, the purpose of the militia was not to initiate an insurrection when the government turned bad. The purpose of the militia was national defense, because the founders never envisioned a professional army. Hell, almost all the founders were around during the Whiskey rebellion, and those farmers had every reason to rebel, they got royally fawked. Did all those founders stand up and take the side the the rebels? Hell no, they backed putting that rebellion down and sentenced the leaders to a hanging. Granted, they were pardoned, mostly because Washington knew they got fawked, hell he was one of the biggest benefactors of the fawking.Correct.There are two chains of thought for the 2nd amendment. One involves the people as members of the militia, giving the right toward that purpose, and that the 2nd applies to the individual.I personally believe the founding fathers would be horrified that every whack-job in the country has access to weapons that can empty out an entire theater in a few moments.
The militia idea would translate to allowing people to possess weapons of war, such as machine guns. While the individual right can actually limit the weapons a person possess to those needed by the individual.
The assault weapon question, like the judge who overturned the california assault weapons ban using a strange legal argument. That people can't be prevented from owning assault weapons because of their popularity and general usage. Had states banned them more effectively, thus preventing their popularity, the ban would have stood.
Which is why conservatives have come to loathe the Heller decision, codifying the individual right paradigm.
Pursuant to that paradigm, the individual right exists to facilitate the use of firearms for personal self-defense, unconnected to militia service – and the types of weapons that might be used by a militia.
That’s why the district court in the California AWB case made reference to the Swiss army knife, military in origin but now in common use by civilians having nothing to do with militia or military service – just like the AR 15.
Conservatives don't have to go past the Constitution which clearly said the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
It's blowhards and racists like you who have to cite president to spin that the Constitution doesn't say what it says
There is at least one gun for every American and probably a lot more unregistered. Yet, in a country with 300,000,000+/- guns, homicide and suicide by gun only account for about 0.1% of all deaths. Cars, drug overdose and other injuries account for much more. So, what is the big threat guns pose?The second amendment has always been about the militia. And no, the purpose of the militia was not to initiate an insurrection when the government turned bad. The purpose of the militia was national defense, because the founders never envisioned a professional army. Hell, almost all the founders were around during the Whiskey rebellion, and those farmers had every reason to rebel, they got royally fawked. Did all those founders stand up and take the side the the rebels? Hell no, they backed putting that rebellion down and sentenced the leaders to a hanging. Granted, they were pardoned, mostly because Washington knew they got fawked, hell he was one of the biggest benefactors of the fawking.
But you moron gun nuts live in a damn fantasy world. You completely distort history. In your delusional world all the colonists had guns stashed under their bed to protect them against robber barons that struck in the night. I mean how stupid. In the battles of Lexington and Concord, where were the British headed? I mean it really is that simple. Yes, in many cities citizens were required to have a gun, STORED IN THE ARMORY, because if you kept it in your house, the Indians would probably get ahold of it. Because lets be honest, a single shot musket was no match for an accomplished Indian archer. Hell, he could send five arrows your way before you reloaded, ONCE. And more accurately too.
And the really sad part, all you fools are being manipulated by a gun manufacturing industry that doesn't give two shits about you, or anyone else for that matter. They are making money hand over fist, and their most profitable product, why it's the assault rifle. The NRA used to be a decent outfit. Hell, they sponsored my rifle team as a kid. And just to throw this in, I was eliminated at the regional level for the Olympics. But the NRA sponsored me and required me to give instruction to high school students. Now, they are little more than a scam outfit enriching their officers and being the bitch for the gun manufacturers. That is why informed people, like myself, my father, and George Bush Jr., no less, have left the NRA.
Whoever Controls Language Controls Thought. Replace All Liberal Terms.What is an assault rifle and how does it differ from a regular rifle?
You said basically one person's morals shouldn't get in the way of another person's morals. If everyone has their own morals that they live by, who is going to tell the amoral not to commit crimes? Laws are based on morality. Maybe you are missing my point.No. I never said that. You did.
That's where we differ.
OK if the law is, as you say amoral, then what does it represent? The 'letter of the law' is different because that just represents words that can be twisted or even re-defined by relative moralists. The underlying foundation of any law has to be an over-arching moral code, without that, law is meaningless.I did not say that if you care to check.
Morality is irrelevant to crimes. Morality doesn't come from a god or whatever, it preceded any religion.
The law is amoral and they deal with crimes.