Page 9 of 12 FirstFirst ... 56789101112 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 170

Thread: Biden Signs Executive Order to Ramp Up Gun Control

  1. #121 | Top
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Posts
    61,489
    Thanks
    1,041
    Thanked 3,617 Times in 2,816 Posts
    Groans
    1,008
    Groaned 1,328 Times in 1,225 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    Yeah, sure. How did that work out in Uvalde? Not well If I recall.
    there were no 'good guys' armed in Uvalde, that's why it didn't work out, dipshit.
    A sad commentary on we, as a people, and our viewpoint of our freedom can be summed up like this. We have liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans, yet those very people look at Constitutionalists as radical and extreme.................so those liberals and conservatives, Democrats and Republicans must believe that the constitution is radical and extreme.

  2. #122 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,698 Times in 2,030 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    This is not gun control. It is registration and tracking.
    In other words, it's gun control. The government is controlling guns, and infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Have I mentioned lately that you are a moron?

    I haven't?

    OK, you are a moron.

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    Do you rightys really want any asshole, no matter how violent and demented he is, to be able to buy guns and ARs?
    Do you leftists really want any asshole, no matter how hungry and thirsty and demented he is, to be able to buy food and water?

    Do you leftists really want any asshole, no matter how dishonest and leftist he is, to be able to pump as many ballots as he wishes into the mail and get them counted?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    Should we remove driver licensing regulations?
    How are you suggesting we infringe on the right to keep and bear cars?

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    Do we remove seat belt, non-shattering glass, and other safety laws of autos, because they were not enumerated in the constitution?
    We don't remove anything from any cars. We remove manufacturer requirements and allow manufacturers to compete in any way they see fit. The cars that will win in the free market should be allowed to come into existence.

  3. The Following User Says Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    Into the Night (03-19-2023)

  4. #123 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    22,864
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 15,405 Times in 9,440 Posts
    Groans
    101
    Groaned 1,894 Times in 1,783 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by SmarterthanYou View Post
    there were no 'good guys' armed in Uvalde, that's why it didn't work out, dipshit.
    Oh..... I see. The cops are not good guys. So we need vigilantes like you.


  5. #124 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    22,864
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 15,405 Times in 9,440 Posts
    Groans
    101
    Groaned 1,894 Times in 1,783 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    In other words, it's gun control. The government is controlling guns, and infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Have I mentioned lately that you are a moron?

    I haven't?

    OK, you are a moron.


    Do you leftists really want any asshole, no matter how hungry and thirsty and demented he is, to be able to buy food and water?

    Do you leftists really want any asshole, no matter how dishonest and leftist he is, to be able to pump as many ballots as he wishes into the mail and get them counted?


    How are you suggesting we infringe on the right to keep and bear cars?


    We don't remove anything from any cars. We remove manufacturer requirements and allow manufacturers to compete in any way they see fit. The cars that will win in the free market should be allowed to come into existence.
    "Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose. See, e.g., Sheldon, in 5 Blume 346; Rawle 123; Pomeroy 152–153; Abbott333. For example, the majority of the 19th-century courts to consider the question held that prohibitions on carrying concealed weapons were lawful under the Second Amendment or state analogues. See, e.g., State v. Chandler, 5 La. Ann., at 489–490; Nunn v. State, 1 Ga., at 251; see generally 2 Kent *340, n. 2; The American Students’ Blackstone 84, n. 11 (G. Chase ed. 1884). Although we do not undertake an exhaustive historical analysis today of the full scope of the Second Amendment , nothing in our opinion should 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.26

    We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. Miller said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those “in common use at the time.” 307 U. S., at 179. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of “dangerous and unusual weapons.”

    Ooops.

    BTW, doofus, have you ever heard of seat belt laws/ Emission laws? Laws governing safety features of cars?

    My God, you are a fucking moron.

  6. #125 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,698 Times in 2,030 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.
    Now that post was an AWESOME waste of bandwidth. I'm only going to quote here above the one relevant part.

    In what way are you claiming that the Constitution allows for the right to keep and bear arms to be infringed?


    Y O U * A R E * A * T O T A L * M O R O N

  7. The Following User Says Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    Into the Night (03-19-2023)

  8. #126 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    22,864
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 15,405 Times in 9,440 Posts
    Groans
    101
    Groaned 1,894 Times in 1,783 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    Now that post was an AWESOME waste of bandwidth. I'm only going to quote here above the one relevant part.

    In what way are you claiming that the Constitution allows for the right to keep and bear arms to be infringed?


    Y O U * A R E * A * T O T A L * M O R O N
    It isn't my claim. It is taken directly from the Heller decision. From the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Remember them, dumb fuck?

  9. #127 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,515
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,563 Times in 17,090 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    In other words, it's gun control. The government is controlling guns, and infringing on the right to keep and bear arms. Have I mentioned lately that you are a moron?

    I haven't?

    OK, you are a moron.


    Do you leftists really want any asshole, no matter how hungry and thirsty and demented he is, to be able to buy food and water?

    Do you leftists really want any asshole, no matter how dishonest and leftist he is, to be able to pump as many ballots as he wishes into the mail and get them counted?


    How are you suggesting we infringe on the right to keep and bear cars?


    We don't remove anything from any cars. We remove manufacturer requirements and allow manufacturers to compete in any way they see fit. The cars that will win in the free market should be allowed to come into existence.
    You are getting worse. Time for you to come up with a new sock. I suggested Bombas. Then you can pretend you did not type something that stupid.

  10. #128 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,698 Times in 2,030 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    It isn't my claim. It is taken directly from the Heller decision. From the Supreme Court of the United States of America. Remember them, dumb fuck?
    When did you lose the ability to read, shit for brains? The question still stands: In what way are you claiming that the Constitution allows for the right to keep and bear arms to be infringed? You may quote the Heller decision if you wish ... if you can read it.

    (f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252, 264–265, refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174, does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.

  11. The Following User Says Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    Into the Night (03-19-2023)

  12. #129 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,698 Times in 2,030 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nordberg View Post
    You are getting worse. Time for you to come up with a new sock. I suggested Bombas. Then you can pretend you did not type something that stupid.
    Have I mentioned lately that you are a moron? I have? Well, it is worth repeating.

    You are a moron. You're one of those trolls that never contributes in any value-added way. You merely waste bandwidth.

  13. #130 | Top
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    53,515
    Thanks
    252
    Thanked 24,563 Times in 17,090 Posts
    Groans
    5,280
    Groaned 4,575 Times in 4,254 Posts

    Default

    [QUOTE=IBDaMann;5546301]Now that post was an AWESOME waste of bandwidth. I'm only going to quote here above the one relevant part.

    In what way are you claiming that the Constitution allows for the right to keep and bear arms to be infringed?


    [CENTER][COLOR=silver]Y O U * A R E * A * T O T A L *
    The first words of the 2nd ' A well-regulated militia, being necessary for the security of a free state.' Not added on. Not a 2nd thought, but the start, the basis for why the 2nd was written. We had no standing army, nor the wealth to build one. America was very vulnerable to foreign invaders. War for land and resources was common. We had to fight with citizen soldiers. That is why they needed guns, training and regulation.
    The 2nd is not very long. Perhaps, on a good day, you could read the whole thing.
    Last edited by Nordberg; 03-18-2023 at 06:44 PM.

  14. #131 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    22,864
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 15,405 Times in 9,440 Posts
    Groans
    101
    Groaned 1,894 Times in 1,783 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    When did you lose the ability to read, shit for brains? The question still stands: In what way are you claiming that the Constitution allows for the right to keep and bear arms to be infringed? You may quote the Heller decision if you wish ... if you can read it.
    I did quote the Heller decision. You can’t read? How sad.

  15. #132 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,698 Times in 2,030 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    I did quote the Heller decision. You can’t read? How sad.
    I posted the relevant part of the decision that begs the question that I asked ... and you couldn't read it. AND you didn't answer the question. I guess we're done.


    * F * U * C * K* I * N * G * * * C * O * W * A * R * D *
    * F * U * C * K* I * N * G * * * I * D * I * O * T *
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  16. The Following User Says Thank You to IBDaMann For This Post:

    Into the Night (03-19-2023)

  17. #133 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    22,864
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 15,405 Times in 9,440 Posts
    Groans
    101
    Groaned 1,894 Times in 1,783 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    I posted the relevant part of the decision that begs the question that I asked ... and you couldn't read it. AND you didn't answer the question. I guess we're done.


    * F * U * C * K* I * N * G * * * C * O * W * A * R * D *
    * F * U * C * K* I * N * G * * * I * D * I * O * T *
    No, I posted the relevant text which answers your question. Heller is clear. Limits CAN.be placed on the 2nd. It is not absolute. So says SCOTUS.

  18. #134 | Top
    Join Date
    Jul 2020
    Posts
    6,471
    Thanks
    0
    Thanked 2,698 Times in 2,030 Posts
    Groans
    0
    Groaned 56 Times in 52 Posts

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Concart View Post
    No, I posted the relevant text which answers your question. Heller is clear. Limits CAN.be placed on the 2nd. It is not absolute. So says SCOTUS.
    You're a dimwit. You aren't answering my question, which came in response to your post, not prior to it.

    You are dishonest, and you are an intellectual coward. Any point that you think your might have had is dismissed.
    Global Warming violates the 1st LoT by claiming a magical creation of thermal energy out of nothing, in the form of a temperature increase, which is somehow caused by a magical substance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates Stefan-Boltzmann and black body science by claiming that an increase in earth's temperature is somehow caused by a decrease in earth's radiance.
    Greenhouse Effect violates the 2nd LoT by claiming that the cooler atmosphere somehow heats the warmer earth's surface.

  19. #135 | Top
    Join Date
    Apr 2020
    Posts
    22,864
    Thanks
    1,440
    Thanked 15,405 Times in 9,440 Posts
    Groans
    101
    Groaned 1,894 Times in 1,783 Posts
    Blog Entries
    5

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by IBDaMann View Post
    You're a dimwit. You aren't answering my question, which came in response to your post, not prior to it.

    You are dishonest, and you are an intellectual coward. Any point that you think your might have had is dismissed.
    ROTFLMFAO!!! What part of ‘not unlimited’ are you having problems with? Are the words too big? Do you need a picture book.

Similar Threads

  1. Biden signs abortion access executive order.
    By Jade Dragon in forum Current Events Forum
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 07-11-2022, 03:31 PM
  2. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 05-25-2022, 11:56 PM
  3. Replies: 5
    Last Post: 03-10-2022, 10:43 AM
  4. Replies: 4
    Last Post: 01-27-2022, 12:46 AM
  5. Replies: 13
    Last Post: 11-18-2021, 05:39 PM

Bookmarks

Posting Rules

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •