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.
Most of the world functions perfectly well with gun controlThe anti-gun pointless gun laws would have failed...again.......he used two .45 caliber guns...which he reloaded repeatedly during the attack.......
He bought them after going through background checks...which means he would pass a universal background check for a private sale.....
They were pistols...not an AR-15, so a stupid "Assault Rifle" ban would not have stopped the attack.....
He bought one gun in 2016, and the other gun in 2018......so stupid waiting periods would not have done anything to stop the attack.....
He displayed no mental issues until recently, so stupid Red Flag Laws would not have kept this from happening....
Anti-gunners......can't get dumber than an anti-gunner....
Gun control laws have zero to do with preventing crime, but EVERYTHING to do with concentrating power in the hands of the very billionaires who fund the anti gun efforts.
They realize you can't truly be the slave they want, when you can defend yourself.
The US has five times the murder rate of those countries that restrict firearms
Shall not be infringed has never meant you can buy any weapon you desireWrong.I am pro-2nd Amendment....you fail....again.Another good guy with a gun....until he's not.
Good guys with guns far outnumber bad guys. Assholes, like you, demand the good guys be disarmed.
YOU, are the problem little asshat.
No, you are not. You are anti 2nd Amendment. The only failure here, is you.
To support the Second Amendment is to support its case law, as determined by the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.
Indeed, to oppose Second Amendment jurisprudence – as you and most others on right do – is to be anti-Second Amendment.
Bullshit. What does "shall NOT be infringed" mean? Political hacks make case law all of the time. And it is usually shit, geared to benefit whichever wealthy patron has bought the judge.
Shall not be infringed has never meant you can buy any weapon you desireWrong.I am pro-2nd Amendment....you fail....again.Good guys with guns far outnumber bad guys. Assholes, like you, demand the good guys be disarmed.
YOU, are the problem little asshat.
No, you are not. You are anti 2nd Amendment. The only failure here, is you.
To support the Second Amendment is to support its case law, as determined by the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.
Indeed, to oppose Second Amendment jurisprudence – as you and most others on right do – is to be anti-Second Amendment.
Bullshit. What does "shall NOT be infringed" mean? Political hacks make case law all of the time. And it is usually shit, geared to benefit whichever wealthy patron has bought the judge.
Thank God for our Second AmendmentMost of the world functions perfectly well with gun controlThe anti-gun pointless gun laws would have failed...again.......he used two .45 caliber guns...which he reloaded repeatedly during the attack.......
He bought them after going through background checks...which means he would pass a universal background check for a private sale.....
They were pistols...not an AR-15, so a stupid "Assault Rifle" ban would not have stopped the attack.....
He bought one gun in 2016, and the other gun in 2018......so stupid waiting periods would not have done anything to stop the attack.....
He displayed no mental issues until recently, so stupid Red Flag Laws would not have kept this from happening....
Anti-gunners......can't get dumber than an anti-gunner....
Gun control laws have zero to do with preventing crime, but EVERYTHING to do with concentrating power in the hands of the very billionaires who fund the anti gun efforts.
They realize you can't truly be the slave they want, when you can defend yourself.
The US has five times the murder rate of those countries that restrict firearms
Big deal. Take a look at Europe as a whole, so that the populations are similar and guess what. Europe's violent crime rates are higher than ours, and gun deaths are similar. You cherry pick and think that supports your argument. All it does is show you to be a weak minded silly person incapable of thinking for yourself.
Thank God for our Second AmendmentMost of the world functions perfectly well with gun controlThe anti-gun pointless gun laws would have failed...again.......he used two .45 caliber guns...which he reloaded repeatedly during the attack.......
He bought them after going through background checks...which means he would pass a universal background check for a private sale.....
They were pistols...not an AR-15, so a stupid "Assault Rifle" ban would not have stopped the attack.....
He bought one gun in 2016, and the other gun in 2018......so stupid waiting periods would not have done anything to stop the attack.....
He displayed no mental issues until recently, so stupid Red Flag Laws would not have kept this from happening....
Anti-gunners......can't get dumber than an anti-gunner....
Gun control laws have zero to do with preventing crime, but EVERYTHING to do with concentrating power in the hands of the very billionaires who fund the anti gun efforts.
They realize you can't truly be the slave they want, when you can defend yourself.
The US has five times the murder rate of those countries that restrict firearms
Big deal. Take a look at Europe as a whole, so that the populations are similar and guess what. Europe's violent crime rates are higher than ours, and gun deaths are similar. You cherry pick and think that supports your argument. All it does is show you to be a weak minded silly person incapable of thinking for yourself.
Shall not be infringed has never meant you can buy any weapon you desireWrong.I am pro-2nd Amendment....you fail....again.Good guys with guns far outnumber bad guys. Assholes, like you, demand the good guys be disarmed.
YOU, are the problem little asshat.
No, you are not. You are anti 2nd Amendment. The only failure here, is you.
To support the Second Amendment is to support its case law, as determined by the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.
Indeed, to oppose Second Amendment jurisprudence – as you and most others on right do – is to be anti-Second Amendment.
Bullshit. What does "shall NOT be infringed" mean? Political hacks make case law all of the time. And it is usually shit, geared to benefit whichever wealthy patron has bought the judge.
30 thousand in one country!!! And you think this is not insane?30 thousand deaths? How pathetic are you?Stupid reply. More guns is not the answer. Americans cannot be trusted with owning guns.Actually, if one of them had one, then maybe they could have protected themselves...
hmmm
600,000,000 firearms in the hands of the civilian populace...
30,000 deaths a year, give or take.
sounds to me like a large majority of Americans can be trusted.
no?
How many deaths are caused by firearms annually, in your estimation?
Shall not be infringed has never meant you can buy any weapon you desireWrong.I am pro-2nd Amendment....you fail....again.Good guys with guns far outnumber bad guys. Assholes, like you, demand the good guys be disarmed.
YOU, are the problem little asshat.
No, you are not. You are anti 2nd Amendment. The only failure here, is you.
To support the Second Amendment is to support its case law, as determined by the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.
Indeed, to oppose Second Amendment jurisprudence – as you and most others on right do – is to be anti-Second Amendment.
Bullshit. What does "shall NOT be infringed" mean? Political hacks make case law all of the time. And it is usually shit, geared to benefit whichever wealthy patron has bought the judge.
Wrong.Wrong.I am pro-2nd Amendment....you fail....again.Another good guy with a gun....until he's not.
Good guys with guns far outnumber bad guys. Assholes, like you, demand the good guys be disarmed.
YOU, are the problem little asshat.
No, you are not. You are anti 2nd Amendment. The only failure here, is you.
To support the Second Amendment is to support its case law, as determined by the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.
Indeed, to oppose Second Amendment jurisprudence – as you and most others on right do – is to be anti-Second Amendment.
Bullshit. What does "shall NOT be infringed" mean? Political hacks make case law all of the time. And it is usually shit, geared to benefit whichever wealthy patron has bought the judge.
Wrong.Wrong.I am pro-2nd Amendment....you fail....again.Good guys with guns far outnumber bad guys. Assholes, like you, demand the good guys be disarmed.
YOU, are the problem little asshat.
No, you are not. You are anti 2nd Amendment. The only failure here, is you.
To support the Second Amendment is to support its case law, as determined by the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.
Indeed, to oppose Second Amendment jurisprudence – as you and most others on right do – is to be anti-Second Amendment.
Bullshit. What does "shall NOT be infringed" mean? Political hacks make case law all of the time. And it is usually shit, geared to benefit whichever wealthy patron has bought the judge.
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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.”
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Again, to support and defend the Second Amendment is to support and defend its jurisprudence; the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
And most on the right oppose Second Amendment case law, and as a consequence oppose the Second Amendment.
That does not say what you pretend it says. It does NOT support bans nor elimination of rights nor firearms.Wrong.Wrong.I am pro-2nd Amendment....you fail....again.Good guys with guns far outnumber bad guys. Assholes, like you, demand the good guys be disarmed.
YOU, are the problem little asshat.
No, you are not. You are anti 2nd Amendment. The only failure here, is you.
To support the Second Amendment is to support its case law, as determined by the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.
Indeed, to oppose Second Amendment jurisprudence – as you and most others on right do – is to be anti-Second Amendment.
Bullshit. What does "shall NOT be infringed" mean? Political hacks make case law all of the time. And it is usually shit, geared to benefit whichever wealthy patron has bought the judge.
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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.”
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Again, to support and defend the Second Amendment is to support and defend its jurisprudence; the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
And most on the right oppose Second Amendment case law, and as a consequence oppose the Second Amendment.
Yup all the blather about banning 'military" style weapons hits the 39 ruling. They are SWrong.Wrong.I am pro-2nd Amendment....you fail....again.
No, you are not. You are anti 2nd Amendment. The only failure here, is you.
To support the Second Amendment is to support its case law, as determined by the courts and ultimately the Supreme Court.
Indeed, to oppose Second Amendment jurisprudence – as you and most others on right do – is to be anti-Second Amendment.
Bullshit. What does "shall NOT be infringed" mean? Political hacks make case law all of the time. And it is usually shit, geared to benefit whichever wealthy patron has bought the judge.
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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.”
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Again, to support and defend the Second Amendment is to support and defend its jurisprudence; the Second Amendment exists solely in the context of its case law, as determined by the Supreme Court.
And most on the right oppose Second Amendment case law, and as a consequence oppose the Second Amendment.
You are a one trick pony, and your pony is falling behind silly boy. The RIGHT to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. That is what the Amendment reads. The fact that activist judges have chosen to misinterpret the RIGHT doesn't make their jurisprudence correct, it just means we have to get OUR activist judges in to revers those bad rulings.
Funny how that works isn't it.
Here is a ruling that will no doubt make you rend your hair...The ruling is based on the fact that they couldn't come up with a MILITARY use for a sawed off shotgun. So, according to MULTIPLE rulings, the only weapons that are protected by the 2nd Amendment are those that HAVE A MILITARY purpose.
Put that in your pipe and smoke it....mr. "jursiprudence"!
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a "shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length" at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument. Certainly it is not within judicial notice that this weapon is any part of the ordinary military equipment, or that its use could contribute to the common defense. Aymette v. State, 2 Humphreys (Tenn.) 154, 158."
United States v. Miller, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)
ECIFICALLY protected by the 2nd Amendment by COURT PRECEDENCE, Clayton's loved phrase.
So you agree - no 'common sense' gun control law would have prevented this shooting. Thanks.Outlawing large capacity magazines might have cut down on the deaths.
Let's stick to the point, Guy. A pump action shotgun is slower, and the police would have been able to stop him before as many had been killed,.Outlawing large capacity magazines might have cut down on the deaths.Officials ID Virginia Beach gunman as city employeePolice have said the suspect was armed with a .45-caliber handgun. Cervera said Saturday that more weapons were found at the scene and at his home, but declined to elaborate.
Craddock, 40, was a professional engineer who had graduated from Denbigh High School in nearby Newport News in 1996 and joined the Army National Guard, according to a newspaper clip from the time. He received basic military training and advanced individual training at Fort Sill, Oklahoma. He later graduated from Old Dominion University with a bachelor’s degree in civil engineering. Before going to work in Virginia Beach, he worked for a private engineering firm in Hampton Roads.
Craddock appears to have had no felony record, which would have made him eligible to purchase firearms
What "common sense" gun control laws would have prevented this shooting?
How is it possible for this shooting take place in a gun free zone?
He could have killed just as many people with a pump action shotgun....he could have killed way more people if he had used a rental truck, the muslim in France, using a rental truck killed 86 people and wounded 435......
Trucks are deadlier than pistols....
We have all of those things in Europe but we dont have mass shootings. What we dont have is easy access to killing machines.Its not complicated.
That's 56.3%Looks like the whites win..
62 out of 110 mass shootings were initiated by White shooters
You are apparently unaware that the police are under a different RoE than someone trapped in a n office building shooting in self-defense.Actually not.
The shooter had a protracted gun battle with several police officers – the notion is naïve nonsense.
Yeah?Wrong.
“Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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.”
