Biden admits truth Finally amazing

[Into the Night]

You're right. He should be able to own anything he wants.
Let him have a rocket launcher, a dozen grenades and a little dirty bomb (but just a little one. We don't want to go overboard).

Not a problem. All are legal weapons under the Constitution of the United States.

[Into the Night]

There IS a happy medium, you know. It isn't always one extreme or the other. You understand that, right?

No weapon is infringed. All weapons are legal under the U.S. Constitution.

[archives]

The law decides. The Constitution of the United States is the highest law of the land. It provides for NO authority for the federal government or any State government to infringe on the right to own and use ANY weapon.

But you want to ignore and discard the Constitution of the United States.

It also doesn't bar State or Federal authorities from regulating the right to own any weapon, you seem to be the one "ignoring the Constitution"

[Into the Night]

I think you've watched too many Rambo movies.

Irrelevance fallacy. Bigotry.

[Into the Night]

Homes with guns are less safe than those without. They are used in anger and by kids They are used in suicide. They are shot by accident. If you have guns, you put your family in jeopardy.

Irrelevance fallacy.

[Into the Night]

That is a statistical fact.

Not statistics. Not a fact. An argument. Denial of mathematics. Math error: Failure to select by randN. Failure to use raw data. Failure to publish data. Failure to declare and justify variance. Failure to calculate margin of error value. Failure to normalize by paired randR.

Guns in homes also get stolen during burglaries and used on other people or to commit armed crimes.

Sometimes, they are even used against the owner.

It stands to reason that having a dangerous weapon around increases one's chances of having a bad outcome involving it.

Random numbers used as data. Argument from randU fallacies.

[Into the Night]

Interesting, someone is requiring everyone today to buy auto insurance, seat belts, and a special chair for your vehicle if you have a child, no who do you suppose that is?

The government has no such authority.

[Into the Night]

That is bullshit, reducing an abstract concept as individual rights to the level of a bumper sticker, but even given you the premise, no where does in say nor imply that having a gun is necessary for your "inherent right" to defend your self

No Constitution grants any right. Constitutions are used to declare and define a government, and to give that government certain enumerated powers and authority. The Constitution does not give either the federal nor any State government the authority to infringe on any weapon.

[Into the Night]

It also doesn't bar State or Federal authorities from regulating the right to own any weapon, you seem to be the one "ignoring the Constitution"

YES IT DOES. See the 2nd and 10th amendments, and Article 1. Also see most State constitutions. Inversion fallacy.

[archives]

No Constitution grants any right. Constitutions are used to declare and define a government, and to give that government certain enumerated powers and authority. The Constitution does not give either the federal nor any State government the authority to infringe on any weapon.

Here we go again with the "inherent rights" defection, and you are correct, Constitutions do define a Gov't, which is why the Founding Fathers attached the Bill of Rights to the Constitution, and as I said, no where in those rights does it say the Gov't can not regulate guns, or anything for that matter

[archives]

YES IT DOES. See the 2nd and 10th amendments, and Article 1. Also see most State constitutions. Inversion fallacy.

Wrong again, been over this umpteen times, no one has ever anywhere going back to the Founding Fathers said the rights listed in the Constitution are absolute, no one, even Scalia emphasized such in his opinion in the Heller case, and
since he is the authority on "orginialism," which is bullshit by the way, no one should know better what the Founding Fathers were thinking

[SmarterthanYou]

No, you just get taxpayer-provided housing, training, employment, education, health care, food, and clothing.

Now, if someone got all those things and weren't a member of the armed forces, you'd call them a welfare leech, wouldn't you?

jealous? envious? you realize that all that came with a promise of 6 years of hard work for those taxpayers as well as a check for my life, should it be necessary? I think YOU taxpayers got the better part of that deal...........

now, if someone was getting all that training, education, health care(that's debatable about how good it really is), food and UNIFORMS (clothing LOL) and not providing any services back to the country, that would be welfare

[LV426]

jealous? envious? you realize that all that came with a promise of 6 years of hard work for those taxpayers as well as a check for my life, should it be necessary? I think YOU taxpayers got the better part of that deal...........

Oh really? We came out on top of the Iraq and Afghanistan invasions and occupations? How about mass NSA surveillance? The drone strikes? Where was our military on 9/11? How are all those things working out for us?

From where I sit, our military hasn't defended any of our freedoms...instead, they've taken away lives, resources, and revenue.

What did you defend? Nothing. Iraq and Afghanistan were not threats to our way of life. They were barely threats in the Middle East and we've thrown how many trillions of dollars down those drains?

You might have fought not for the country, but for your brothers in arms...but really, what was the point? If the point was to merely support your brother in a fox hole, then you're avoiding conversation about why you both were in the foxhole to begin with.

Veterans are not a special class of people. Time to stop venerating them as if they are. Trillions of dollars lost, millions of lives lost, and none of it stopped a wannabe dictator from trashing our democracy.

[SmarterthanYou]

Because there is no intelligence in your bs article .. which is why you made no attempt to defend that ignorance. It’s a weapon of mass murder and NO ONE should have ‘right’ to a weapon of mass murder. It’s just that simple.

Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American... The unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state government.....
Tench Coxe, Pennsylvania Gazette, Feb. 20, 1788.

[LV426]

now, if someone was getting all that training, education, health care(that's debatable about how good it really is), food and UNIFORMS (clothing LOL) and not providing any services back to the country, that would be welfare

You didn't provide any services back to the country. The country had to provide for you. Trillions in military spending couldn't stop 9/11. Trillions in military spending didn't protect us from cyberattacks. Trillions in spending didn't protect us from Climate Change or even this pandemic.

The threats to this country aren't big armies with tanks and planes...it's not even foreign terrorism. The threats are domestic terrorists, cyberattacks, Climate Change, and pandemics like the one we are experiencing right now. Our military was not agile enough to defend us from those threats.

So what did you really do? Coasted by on taxpayer-provided support. And you didn't make us any more safe.