A fucking minority liberal criminal with 60+ arrests and 15+ felony convictions from a liberal gun control utopia state with a leftist revolving door criminal justice system kills people and you think that's a call for gun control on people who aren't criminals?
See, that's why you and your ilk are mocked and dismissed . . .
Wrong.
If the right is not being granted, given, created or otherwise established by the words, the right is not in any manner dependent upon those words for its existence. The Supreme Court has been boringly consistent for going on 140+ years, reaffirming that constitutional truth.
Liberals are either just to thick to understand or they are so enamored with the leftist idea that rights come from government that they just can't get it correct.
You schooling anyone on rights a joke.
Just because the right to arms is not "absolute" does not mean that any gun control idea your statist authoritarian mind can think up passes constitutional muster.
You have no comprehension of or respect for what the origin of our rights is, what a right actually is, or what government's role is regarding our rights.
Gun rights people know that the people who think like you and talk like you (unhinged rants) wouldn't protest in the least if a law were passed to forcibly take the guns from Americans.
When you say that you don't care about law-abiding citizen's guns and that you don't want them confiscated we (gun owners) know you can not be trusted.
Nothing personal, it's just you seem like the type of person who wouldn't have any problem loading us onto cattle cars to rid your society of ner' do wells like gun owners.
(o,o) Abatis Alice in Liberalland anatta Bigdog BillyB Booyah! Boris The Animal Celticguy CFM chink Corazón Darth Omar Dropbear1 Getin the ring God bless America Granule I Love America Irish J.kennedy jmotivator liberalsAREracists mak2 noise NOVA philly rabbit PostmodernProphet PraiseKek Ralph Right Sailor Silver Buzzard SmarterthanYou Teflon Don Text Drivers are Killers TheDanold TheDonald tinfoil Trump Diva USFREEDOM911 Waternark Yaya
Check /
The new updated official courtesy list of JPP total idiots provided for your ready reference
domer76 (10-22-2017)
Try me. You dont have the balls
I have no need to do anything because you and your ilk dont have the balls to move on guns. Even your boy Chucky Schumer told democrats to pipe down about guns.
You have to make the first move. But, as I said, you will not. I have nothing to fear with regards to losing my guns.
But you will continue to whine. On to the next mass murder and nothing will happen. I laugh at you
The absolute truth is, there is no constitutional support for any federal gun law that impacts the personal arms of the private citizen.
One of the federal decisions that sustained 20th Century gun control (Cases v US) admitted that but then opined away their own statement, saying (without any support) that the framers couldn't have intended such a result.
Wrong.
SCOTUS has never wavered in describing a personal, individual right. Cruikshank described the right to arms of two former slaves, Presser reaffirmed that the right to arms does not depend on the 2nd, it described the right of private citizens to own guns but that the 2nd Amendment did not protect any right to form themselves into armed groups and march in a city. Miller made no statement regarding the militia status of Layton and Miller as being of any importance to either their standing before the Court or the private ownership of the shotgun; the only thing the Court considered decisive was the type of arm and if it could be effective in battle. In Lewis the Court discussed remedies that would permit a felon to own a gun . . . nowhere was being a member of the militia or the need to join the militia mentioned as being a requirement to exercise the right secured by the 2nd Amendment.
Where is this 200 year history of non-individual right precedent? Please, Please, Please, explain it to me, quote and cite the case.
The truth is, the "collective right" nonsense was inserted in the federal courts in 1942 -- Cases v US for the "militia right" & US v Tot for the "state's right" interpretations.
Heller just slapped the lower courts back into the constitutional fold.
Setting right 66 years of legal perversion is going to take some time. A shit-ton of bad federal, state and local law was built upon and sustained by Cases and Tot and their illegitimate progeny
I have been debating gun rights for 24 years; I cut my teeth on USENET in talk.politics.guns. Back in the 90's the anti-gun side could actually formulate some reasoned arguments (you did have some law on your side) without the bullshit that this thread demonstrates. I yearn to have those debates again. I lurk on over 30 boards looking for an anti that can actually debate without descending into gobbledygook and bullshit.
Could you be my unicorn, a post Emerson gun control supporter who can compose legal arguments and stay out of the gutter?
Well, if you are so sure of your skills start a thread in APP laying out an argument for federal gun control because the Constitution does not protect an individual right.
I'm proposing you begin because under our system, it really shouldn't be my responsibility to say a right exists, you need to demonstrate a constitutional basis for law exists.
Hopefully the disruptive voices on both sides will allow a one-on-one debate to proceed unmolested.
What's your solution?
Keep changing the names. It doesn't change the meaning.
Abortion
Pro-Choice
Women's rights
Women's Health
You hide behind your gun collection and your wall of KKK/neo-Nazi brethren who live alongside you on your home street...
...because you're not man enough to face a real man one on one with no guns or crowd of armed, goon comrades to protect you.
Just like the rest of your Aryan Nation Klan buddies, you are a big-mouthed, gutless pussy and you know it.
C'MON MAN!!!!
Micawber (10-22-2017)
Bookmarks