Biden Signs Executive Order to Ramp Up Gun Control

Nordberg said:
This is not gun control. It is registration and tracking.
Click to expand...
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.

Nordberg said:
Do you rightys really want any asshole, no matter how violent and demented he is, to be able to buy guns and ARs?
Click to expand...
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?

Nordberg said:
Should we remove driver licensing regulations?
Click to expand...
How are you suggesting we infringe on the right to keep and bear cars?

Nordberg said:
Do we remove seat belt, non-shattering glass, and other safety laws of autos, because they were not enumerated in the constitution?
Click to expand...
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.
 
IBDaMann said:
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.
Click to expand...

"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.
 
Concart said:
Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited.
Click to expand...
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​
 
IBDaMann said:
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​
Click to expand...

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?
 
IBDaMann said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Concart said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
Click to expand...
 
Nordberg said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
IBDaMann said:
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 *
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.​
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
IBDaMann said:
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.
Click to expand...

I did quote the Heller decision. You can’t read? How sad.
 
Concart said:
I did quote the Heller decision. You can’t read? How sad.
Click to expand...
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 *​
 
IBDaMann said:
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 *​
Click to expand...

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.
 
Concart said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 
IBDaMann said:
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.
Click to expand...

ROTFLMFAO!!! What part of ‘not unlimited’ are you having problems with? Are the words too big? Do you need a picture book.
 
archives said:
Bullshit

If you actually took the time to understand the bail reform effort you would know that it doesn’t apply to violent or threatening individuals, and please, don’t reply with some cherry picked Fox example showing some criminal with a history was released
Click to expand...

why are there so many cherries to pick from?......
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top