Biden is creating a new White House office focused on gun violence prevention

that you got it as wrong as those who thought they had it right who attacked the capitol with your "Someone has to stand up for the law, even during the collapse.".


Collapse... lol

 

All civilizations collapse. Read some history.

I got it as wrong as some other folks? What exactly am I getting wrong?

 

Emphasis mine.
QED

You just can't help yourself from flying through the air when you break wind eh?

 

Which is why you fail. I'm not "happy" with people being killed ffs. The more you falsely represent it as such, the less likely anyone is to fall for your line.
Seriously: Have you in your life EVER convinced ANYONE but a minor child of anything using that tactic?
Its literally the same expression conceptually as: Well you won't give me chocolate cake for every meal because you're a meanie!!!!!

 

Which. Which are still in place. The gun laws are not persons.

See NYSRPA v BRUEN.

 

It is not part of their sentence. They are not sentenced to second class citizenship status post jail time. It is not a condition of their release outside of parole events where you don't have to release them in the first place and they're TRADING things for being outside a cage.
It is an arbitrary, capricious, extrajudicial continuing punishment that creates a second class of citizens in direct contravention of the equal protection clause.

You want that? You'll need a life with parole, and as a condition of parole you waive on going rights to assemble, bear arms, and vote.
You can't even follow the process that would be required. You're just as bad as the standard grabbers, maybe worse for the inconsistency.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Davy_Crockett_(nuclear_device)

Dude: Let's not be coy here. You and I both know nukes are man portable. You and I both know chemical weapons are man portable. You and I both know bio weapons are man portable.
You and I both know US citizens owned cannons and ships of the line. You and I both know that ownership of cannons or ships of the line was not because you can hoist a ****ing man o war over your ****ing head.
Would it cause you physical harm to remain consistent?

 

that someone owned something and the government didn't stop that in no way invokes the coverage of the second. that was more of a tenth amendment issue. and I have always been consistent-the second amendment was intended to cover individual small arms that people would normally keep and bear

 

I don't support it but I know why it is done and yes, that can be part of a sentence. I have noted that I don't believe the federal government properly has that power under the commerce clause to do that

 

the burden is always on people who want to restrict the freedom of others

 

thread winner-it is a general theme here-anti gun ownership posters claim that unless you support gun restrictions-you refuse to do anything about "the gun problem". in reality, their problem is legal gun ownership not violent crime

 

If they really wanted to combat violent crime, they wouldn't be turning violent offenders loose on the streets. The lie has been exposed.

 

It has been the case for decades. FDR wanted to pander to the nervous nellies who wanted something done about a crime problem the government created with Prohibition so rather get rid of the root cause, the pimp in chief decided to try to ban guns. Fast forward to the sixties when drugs, discrimination, and the unpopular and poorly justified war was causing street crime to rise-the democrats were loathe to be called "racists" by demanding law and order-so again they pandered to the masses with gun control being sold as crime control

 

Whoa! Sounds like you're made because you know I'm right...lol

 

there is a faith based attitude it seems-that the only or best way to control crime is to hassle law abiding gun owners-it gets to the point that harassing lawful gun owners seems to be the real goal: not come control

 

So it DOES cause you physical pain to be consistent.

1) See Marque and Reprisal clause. Art 1 Sec 8 contemplates a populace already in possession of ships of the line, needing only permission to shoot first.
Or are you saying you need a history lesson on a) letters of marque or a reprisal generally; and b) letters of marque or a reprisal as historically used in actual US history?
I'm happy to give a remedial lesson to you if you admit you are in ignorance of the facts. All you have to do is say it. Go on. Say it.

2) Art 1 Sec 8 is not a 10th amendment issue. Ships of the line in international waters reaving enemy shipping is not a 10th amendment issue. Further: It wasn't "stopped" because the government has no RIGHT to "stop" ownership of a weapon. Even if its a rather large weapon.

3) The davy ****ing crocket is man ****ing portable. A suit case nuke is man ****ing portable. A conventional explosive with some radioactive waste strapped to it is man ****ing portable. A vial of anthrax is man ****ing portable. A mortar is man ****ing portable and chemical mortar rounds ****ing exist. Come the **** off it.

 

I couldn't care less that modern technology allows man portable weapons that are designed to attack an area that are worthless for self defense. I don't think they are weapons that the founders saw civilians keeping and bearing. Same with anthrax. And when you can find ONE established legal scholar or federal judge who thinks that the second would protect the ownership of a nuke by a private citizen it will be the first

 

following up
https://www.cato.org/commentary/still-limits-second-amendment

Your neighbor has a right to keep a gun in his home to defend himself, because the threat of home invasion is real. But your neighbor does not have a right to keep a nuclear weapon in his home, because it is not reasonable to think that he would need such a weapon to defend himself.

The right to self‐defense thus creates a bulwark that government regulation of arms may not breach. If a weapon would permit a proportionate defense against a reasonably foreseeable threat, the government cannot prohibit you from owning or carrying it.

 

Naturally. Where else would it derive any powers? The Constitution is the blueprint for our government. Any changes to the structure (or powers) of the government, would be dependent upon alterations in the blueprint, through Constitutional Amendment, to first validate them.

 

It is you, FYI, who clings to this idea about others' motivations-- and uses it, to dismiss their arguments, when logic fails you, in that effort-- like an article of faith. So what you are doing in the post, above, is clearly, by definition, projection of your own modus operandi.

To put it more simply, since you have been having trouble following, and have been blatantly misinterpreting, my arguments: you cannot credibly deny that your posts demonstrate your own "faith based attitude," that the only motivation for any gun control argument, is a desire to "hassle law abiding gun owners." That this is not a sound, objectively reasoned judgement, on your part, is shown by the fact that you continue to assert your belief, even after I have shown you that many gun owners, themselves-- even a majority of gun owners, on a couple of items-- support various gun control measures. That fact, flies in the face of the assertion, that you here, continue to espouse, which would mean, according to your theory, that "the real goal," of many gun owners, is "harassing lawful gun owners:" that is, harassing themselves.

If you cannot see that this thesis is logically unsound, and self-belying, then I feel sorry for you. This clear truth also, BTW, immediately tarnishes all your arguments with this patina of suspect sincerity, since you have already confessed that you believe those with whom you are debating, are all, themselves, being insincere. It is a mystery to me, why you would then seem to go out of your way, to debate things with those who are being completely disingenuous. To my mind, and sensibilities, seeing that someone is insincere, is usually a good argument for not wasting one's breath on them.

 

Whoa! You'd better clean your ears-- they must be pretty dirty, if that's what my post sounds like, to you. My objection (if this is not beyond your ability to grasp), has nothing to do with the subject of your post: it has to do with your METHOD; namely, the very thing which my post had parodied: your telling other people, what their "true" intentions, and feelings, are, as if you would have any way of knowing this.

 

The agenda has been exposed. So, either you support it, or you've been tricked into supporting it, thinking it's about "addressing violent crime". Which is it?

 

???Yes.

Racism is another part of our historical tradition.

Why have a constitution at all?

 

your ranting has nothing to do with the topic.

 

lets cut through the crap-tell us what sort of arms are protected by the second amendment