Biden admits truth Finally amazing

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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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
 
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
 
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
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

so you want to blame the military for the failures of politicians????? haven't you been advocating that the military is always subject to command of civilians in office?
 
You didn't provide any services back to the country. The country had to provide for you.
how have you survived being this ignorant? every combat oriented pilot in cherry point is alive to train because I controlled the air traffic at that air station. every combat oriented troop that flew on cargo and transport aircraft is alive because I controlled the air traffic around that air station........

you should really just stop. you're making yourself look like a bigger dumbfuck than domer
 
so you want to blame the military for the failures of politicians????? haven't you been advocating that the military is always subject to command of civilians in office?

The military should absolutely be under civilian command. Otherwise, we have a military dictatorship.

My point is that the military, at least over my lifetime, hasn't protected any of my freedoms and have actively worked to take those freedoms away for the sake of "national security".

The military didn't protect us on 9/11. It didn't protect us on the OKC bombing. It didn't protect us during the anthrax attacks. It didn't protect us from the DC Sniper attacks. It didn't protect us from the cyberattacks. It didn't protect us from Russian meddling in our election. It didn't protect us from Katrina, Sandy, or any of the major natural disasters. It didn't protect us from COVID.

So every single threat to this country, in this century at least, the military failed to protect the citizenry.

So why should I celebrate that? Why should anyone? If anyone failed at their job like that, they'd be fired...with good reason.

So if what you were fighting for were your brothers and sisters in arms, then you weren't fighting to protect the country...and if you were fighting to protect the country, you failed.
 
how have you survived being this ignorant? every combat oriented pilot in cherry point is alive to train because I controlled the air traffic at that air station. every combat oriented troop that flew on cargo and transport aircraft is alive because I controlled the air traffic around that air station

This was when? During the 80's?

Yeah, there was no threat to our freedoms in the 1980's.

The USSR was already in decline thanks to three things, none of which we really had a hand in: Perestroika, Chernobyl, and the Famine.

So what freedoms did you defend by shuttling traffic on a runway?
 
how have you survived being this ignorant? every combat oriented pilot in cherry point is alive to train because I controlled the air traffic at that air station. every combat oriented troop that flew on cargo and transport aircraft is alive because I controlled the air traffic around that air station........

you should really just stop. you're making yourself look like a bigger dumbfuck than domer

So you had what amounted to an office job, sitting on your ass, and were never at the slightest risk of serving in combat, getting shot at, or serving in the trenches. A peacetime assignment, courtesy of the taxpayers, which was probably less risky than the job of an ER nurse.

Yeah, my brother had an office job with the Air Force,, sitting on his ass at a desk, but he never claimed to be a warrior who every one else should thank for his service
 
well, some of you are truly fucking ignorant as well as massively envious that you were too cowardly to serve as well.............that pretty much places you in the useless category.......
 
No it isn't their second amendment right. That amendment says you can keep and bear arms, it says nothing about an AR15. There are plenty of guns that you CAN'T have. You say you will defend them to the death then why aren't you doing that now? I'm looking for a 50 cal sub machine gun do you know where I'll find a gun shop to sell me one? That's "arms" isn't it, how come you aren't fighting that? Or grenades, those are arms aren't they, are you fighting over not being allowed to have a few of them? I really want a howitzer in my front yard. I doubt many of you have as many guns as I do but if I had to give up a few so be it.

You should be allowed all that, all Americans should. However you're a commie turd and don't realize that.

Okay, I'll bite: What caliber of guns does your commie turd shit-talking fucktard ass own?
 
well, some of you are truly fucking ignorant as well as massively envious that you were too cowardly to serve as well.............that pretty much places you in the useless category.......

But I am pretty sure you have run your mouth about being a warrior, about your heroic military service and demanded you be thanked for it.

You had what amounted to a taxpayer funded, risk free office job. ER nurses and paramedics face more risk than you did at your air force desk jockey job
 
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

The government cannot do ANYTHING unless it is authorized by it's constitution.

Nowhere in the Constitution is authorization given to regulate guns.
The 2nd amendment specifically PROHIBITS the federal and State government from regulating guns. States are bound by the 2nd amendment. They agreed to it when they joined the Union.
The 10th amendment specifically PROHIBITS the federal government from interfering with State's rights. The federal government is ONLY authorized with certain powers as listed specifically in the Constitution itself. It has NO OTHER powers or authorizations. Those powers and authorizations are listed in Article 1 of that same constitution.

The government has NO authority to regulate guns. It is violating it's own Constitution to try to do so.

Inherent rights are not a deflection (I assume that's what you mean). They are a core right. No government can take that away.

References:
2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution said:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
This amendment discusses two related rights; the right of a State to defend itself. It does this by forming a militia, made up of the people of that State, organized into a fighting force; and the right of the people to defend themselves, through the use of the weapon of their choice (arms). Neither right shall be infringed. No way. No how. Not one iota.

4th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution said:
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.
This amendment, also binding up on the States, prohibits the use or formation of gun registries. Whether I own a gun or not is my private affair. The government has NO say in it. The government cannot form such a registry, which can be used to seize a gun without due process). A gun is an 'effect'. I am a 'person'. My gun is in my 'house' or on my 'person'. A warrant MUST come from a judge, and only after probable cause of a crime. That's what 'probable cause' means. Owning and using the gun itself is not a crime, and can never be made a crime.

10th Amendment of the U.S. Constitution said:
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
This amendment means that the federal government MUST limit itself to the powers and authorities given by the States, the owners of the Constitution of the United States. The States are each sovereign, with their own constitutions, which define and declare that State government and give it its powers and authorities. Those State constitutions are owned by the people of that State. They are the ones that created it, they are the only ones that can change it, just as the States are the only ones that can change the federal constitution.

The States agreed to the Constitution of the United States (as amended) when they joined the Union. Some parts are binding upon the States as a result, others are not. The 1st amendment, for example, applies ONLY to the federal government. It does not apply to the States. The Articles also apply only to the federal government, not the States, except where procedures are set up for States to elect Presidents and for changing the Constitution (through amendment or constitutional convention). The States, of course, could choose to destroy the Constitution, dissolving the federal government completely by doing so. This is not likely in anywhere the near future.

Nowhere in the Constitution is listed what type of weapon is an 'arm'. All weapons are allowed. Nowhere is a weapon described by type, brand name, style, or action. All types, brand names, styles, or actions are allowed. It doesn't matter if you want to own a nuclear bomb. You have that right. It's not a practical weapon for most any situation though, but you DO HAVE THAT RIGHT. As always, you are responsible for the storage and use of that weapon.

People DO own functioning tanks. They even have gatherings and clubs for them. Machine guns, large artillery, such as cannons or even trebuchets are legal. Land mines are legal. Bombs are legal. Mortars are legal. There are owners, and even clubs that exist for those weapons. I happen to belong to some of them. I happen to own about 40 mortars, for example, and I shoot them fairly regularly. I also make the explosives used in them myself. That's also legal.

Yes, I am responsible for the safe storage of those explosives, mortars, and other devices, including my guns. I am responsible for the use of them and any damage they might cause. Nothing absolves me of that. No insurance, no government law, no claim of ignorance, nothing.

If my magazine of explosives blows up, it destroys my shed. No big deal. No one else is affected. I just need to build a new shed and install a new magazine in it. The explosives are locked, using locks and hinges protected by thick steel so they can't be sawed off. They are in a locked shed. I do not allow anyone near that shed without specific authorization by me. The shed is clearly marked on what is in it. Only specific people can enter that shed and everything is logged. That log is evidence in court.

Why explosives? For entertainment purposes, of course! :D
 
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

Constitutions do not give rights. They are not the source of any right. Constitutions define and describe a government entity and give it specific powers and authorities. That government has NO OTHER powers or authorities. The founding fathers are dead. You cannot use them to denigrate of cancel the Constitution, or claim 'originalism'. The Constitution stands on its own. It is clearly written. It doesn't matter what the founding fathers were thinking. They are dead.

The supreme court does not have authority to change or interpret the Constitution of the United States nor of any State constitution. See Article III.
 
Back
Top