Federal judge rules handgun laws violate Second Amendment

Ohh the lefties keep ignoring this and they always will. The left loves their minority criminals that don't possess legal firearms.

 

Right and those limitations, like speech and religion, are a gun owner can't cause harm.

 

Well, we do have a UHC, so mental health is somewhat better but we do have domestic violence which is a stronger correlate to mass shootings but most importantly we have this


The yellow line is our mass shootings the red - yours

 

The only age mentioned at our founding was 16, however that age never made it to the final cut. I think it’s unconstitutional to limit rights to adults. The easy way around this is to raise the age of adulthood.

 

Hate speech is protected speech under the First Amendment. It’s a bit different here than in Australia. The government cannot criminalize hate speech here.

 

Yea his country is polluting the air with coal at astronomical rates for the commies and trampling women's rights in areas by having complete BANS on any and all abortions, yet every day he's here lecturing up. If he was a good lefty he would be rioting and protesting his government, but we all know why he doesn't, they don't take kindly to that crap down there and the outcome wouldn't be as friendly as we treat our criminals, so he comes here to whine about daddy.

 

Then they have the right to keep and bear arms.

 

Glad you agree.

 

The photo you posted.

 

that has no basis in fact. tell us what law's threat of punishment will disarm someone who is not deterred by the consequences of being convicted of mass murder. we get that gun banners pretend that their hatred of lawful gun ownership is based on mass shootings when the real reason is political animus

 

and someone who was not deterred by a death sentence or 500 years in prison

 

but you know-as do I, that there is a 200+year precedent that minors do not enjoy certain constitutional rights or implied rights (voting for example) power to enter into contracts, Voting, so claiming 13-17 year olds will be covered under the second amendment is pretty ludicrous

 

More importantly, he understands the meaning of "shall not be infringed".

 

what do you define as easy access. we have easy access to fentanyl and crack cocaine. my 25 year old, who is a wealthy white kid living in a wealthy suburban area, with a history of smoking a blunt here and there, assures me he could get either drug within an hour. I know he is truthful so there is easy access to stuff that has been completely banned for years

 

Define "common".

 

there are certain litmus tests I use concerning whether someone has any understanding of constitutional law and theory. anyone who cites "well regulated" to support gun restrictions flunks instantly. It is as big a sign as arguing geology with someone who claims the earth is flat

 

yeah, why do anti gun advocates assume we worship Trump. we don't. NEXT

 

And also immaterial. You're either not reading, or deliberately ignoring the fact that states do have age of adulthood. They cant restrict civil rights to adults. They could change the age of adulthood. They cant say adults cant own weapons.

 

“Shall not be infringed” is absolute?

 

Why do you assume anyone who calls for the repeal of 2A is an anti gun advocate. We aren’t.

 

why would anyone call for that if they are something other than a gun banner

 

it should be at a federal level but more a tenth amendment issue

BBL in 20 minutes

 

Someone who wants reasonable gun control legislation, like exists in lots of other countries.

 

If it’s absolute at a federal level then, according to you, any private citizen should be allowed to own any weapon in existence. Including nuclear, chemical and biological weapons. Anti tank weapons. Surface to air weapons. Yes?

 

So the answer is no.