57
   

Guns: how much longer will it take ....

 
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Tue 11 Oct, 2022 11:54 am
@oralloy,
The NRA butchers thousands every year, that's its purpose, mass homicide.

You know that, you're part of it, leering goulishly at every murder victim, and demonising their families.

That's what you do, spread hate, misery and death.

It's all you do.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Below viewing threshold (view)
Region Philbis
 
  4  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 02:52 pm

outstanding!

Alex Jones must pay Sandy Hook families nearly $1 billion for hoax claims, jury says
(reuters)

https://iili.io/ZqFTGe.jpg
0 Replies
 
InfraBlue
 
  2  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 04:50 pm
@McGentrix,
McGentrix wrote:
It goes back to the foundation of the US as a Republic of states under a restricted Federal government. The Constitution was a list of what powers the Federal government could and couldn't have.

The good regulation of the bearing of arms is written in the Constitution.

McGentrix wrote:
The ability to infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms was a very clear restriction that has been bastardized through the years.

How has it been bastardized?

McGentrix wrote:
The reason for that was the citizens of the US, as Madison points out, are the best-armed society in the world and the government is of the people, by the people, and for the people.
This doesn't address the fact that the Constituion calls for the good regulation of the bearing of arms, and Madison, in refers to this militia as "united and conducted by governments," in regard to the states themselves.

McGentrix wrote:
Now, the government is of the wealthy, by the wealthy, and for the wealthy. The rest of us are basically wage slaves and tax monkeys.

How is this relevant to the anti-regulation, bearing of arms free-for-all argument?
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 06:17 pm
@InfraBlue,
InfraBlue wrote:
The militia that Madison refers to is what is now the National Guard, organized and controlled by the states and the federal government.

The Framers intended that the militia would make a standing army unnecessary. The notion that a standing army can count as the militia goes clearly against this intent.

Since the National Guard are sworn members of the US Army, they are not the militia.
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 06:21 pm
@hightor,
Jamie Raskin wrote:
Many Republicans in Congress agree with Representative Matt Gaetz that the Second Amendment "is about maintaining within the citizenry the ability to maintain an armed rebellion against the government, if that becomes necessary."

This purported right to overthrow the government means that the people must enjoy access to weapons that are wholly unnecessary for hunting or self-defense, such as military-style assault weapons. As Representative Chip Roy, a Republican, argues, the Second Amendment was "designed purposefully to empower the people to resist the force of tyranny used against them."

Some champions of this insurrectionist theory of the Second Amendment seem to glorify violence against public officials. Two weeks before the Jan. 6, 2021, insurrection overran the U.S. Capitol, Representative Lauren Boebert declared that the Second Amendment "has nothing to do with hunting, unless you're talking about hunting tyrants, maybe."

Leftist condemnation of insurrectionist theory is always filled with logical and factual errors. But I am not a fan of insurrectionist theory, and I prefer to not waste my energy defending an ideology that I am not a fan of.

Do note that insurrectionist theory is not the only route to the American people owning military weapons. The argument that "the right to keep and bear arms is connected to the militia" also means that the American people have the right to have military weapons.

I'm a much bigger fan of this later argument, so will happily expend energy defending that. Assuming that I am not silenced by a2k censorship that is.


Jamie Raskin wrote:
Statements such as these were irresponsible enough before Jan. 6. Today, such talk courts disaster. It valorizes the brutality of the worst insurrectionary domestic attack at the Capitol in U.S. history,

Leftists tyrants really need to get a grip. Peaceful protests are a normal part of democracy.


Jamie Raskin wrote:
freezes our ability to pass reasonable gun safety legislation and justifies even more deadly political violence. It is essential to reject the myth that frustrated citizens have a Second Amendment right to raise arms against the government -- an outrageous betrayal of our Constitution.

As I noted above, connecting the right to keep and bear arms to the militia has the same end result of the American people having the right to have military weapons.


Jamie Raskin wrote:
Despite all this abundant repudiation of insurrection and rebellion in the body of the Constitution, some House Republicans still parrot National Rifle Association talking points and insist that the Second Amendment -- in invisible ink -- protects the right of private citizens to overthrow the government by force.

I could be wrong. I don't have a handy list of everything that the NRA has ever said. But I suspect that he is lying about the NRA's position.


Jamie Raskin wrote:
When I point out these problems with constitutional insurrectionism, my G.O.P. House colleagues fall back on two responses. First, they quote profusely from Patrick Henry -- of "Give me liberty or give me death" fame -- which is amusing because Henry was an anti-Federalist who opposed the ratification of the Constitution. It's like quoting speeches by the Confederate leader Jefferson Davis to settle the meaning of the 13th and 14th Amendments.

This Raskin character sure is ignorant. It was Patrick Henry's objections voiced in the Virginia Ratifying Convention that led directly to the Anti-Federalists demanding the Second Amendment.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -4  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 06:26 pm
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
TIME TO REPEAL THE 2ND AMENDMENT.

Sorry. No. We are not going to abolish freedom here in America.


MontereyJack wrote:
CNN reports on simple laser printed device that turns any semi auto handgun into a machine gun in seconds. There were over 5000 incidents with the devise last year. It is called an auto sear. Google it for the full story

That would be 3D printed.

There is an article about the rise in 3D-printed auto sears here:
https://www.nbcwashington.com/news/local/illegal-device-makes-semiautomatic-pistols-fully-automatic/2712262/

The article also has a video that shows what a Glock pistol is like with a 3D-printed auto sear installed.

The audio is potentially NSFW (no porn or anything, but be prepared for loud machinegun blasts over your speakers).


MontereyJack wrote:
and talk to your lawmakers

Always. I make sure that my lawmakers oppose all gun control no matter how reasonable it is.


MontereyJack wrote:
and of course vote blue every time you can.

Never. I vote for people who defend my freedom. That's the Republicans.
0 Replies
 
Below viewing threshold (view)
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Wed 12 Oct, 2022 10:03 pm
@oralloy,
sheer insanity. no the left does not,
izzythepush
 
  2  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2022 01:33 am
Glad not to be subject to the tyranny of the second ammendment.

Our children are protected from the child murdering NRA.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2022 07:19 am
@MontereyJack,
MontereyJack wrote:
sheer insanity. no the left does not,

Denying reality isn't going to work for you.

Your catastrophic failure to provide any alternative motivation for outlawing pistol grips on semi-auto long guns is clear proof that that is the left's actual motivation.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2022 07:20 am
@hightor,
hightor wrote:
So much for the self-styled "armed resistance" – these are the people claiming to be "protecting our freedom" and they can't even hold up their side in an online discussion.

When someone is censored because the left finds their facts inconvenient, that is not a case of the censored person being unable to hold up their side in an argument.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2022 07:25 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
To have a gun you should have a legitimate reason.

We're free people here in America. We get to have guns merely because we feel like it.


izzythepush wrote:
People living in the wilds need to protect themselves from wild animals like bears.
These are legitimate reasons.

I find it amusing that if I lived under UK governance I would be deemed to have a legitimate need for a lever-action rifle.

Not that I have any respect for this "legitimate need" nonsense, but it's kind of amusing.
izzythepush
 
  3  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2022 07:27 am
@oralloy,
You're a drone, a serf who has to pay for healthcare.

We free people demanded it as our right.

And our children are safe from the paedophile NRA.
0 Replies
 
oralloy
 
  -3  
Reply Thu 13 Oct, 2022 07:29 am
@izzythepush,
izzythepush wrote:
I could see Oralloy doing something like that.

I would only fire on someone in self defense.

For that matter, I would only fire on an animal in self defense. I'm pro-hunter, but I don't think I could bring myself to kill something if my life wasn't at stake.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.14 seconds on 06/18/2024 at 03:21:10