[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / asp / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / wsg / wsr / x] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/news/ - Current News

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


>https://denver.cbslocal.com/2021/01/02/i-want-to-carry-my-firearm-to-defend-myself-congresswoman-elect-lauren-boebert/
Dems trying to ban the congresswoman elect who stood up to the tyrant Beto from carrying a gun in congress.
>‘I Want To Carry My Firearm To Defend Myself’: Congresswoman-Elect Lauren Boebert Takes Fierce Stance On Gun Rights To Capitol Hill
>(CBS4)– Colorado Congresswoman-elect Lauren Boebert, R-Rifle, hasn’t even been sworn in but her fierce stance on gun rights continues to grab headlines and attention from House Democrats. On New Year’s Day, the incoming freshman fired back at Democrats who recently made an effort to ban lawmakers from carrying firearms.
>>
>“Democrats like Representative Huffman (D-California), put forward a letter with 21 signers, and I am proud to say we are countering that letter with 82 of colleagues who have joined me to stop this radical gun grab Democrats are trying,” said Boebert.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15909806/2021/01/DEMS-LETTER-002.jpg

>Just over two weeks ago, 21 democrats signed a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and GOP Leader Kevin McCarthy, asking for an update the House Rules package- a ban on carrying firearms for all lawmakers.

>The letter stated in part, These regulations, which date back to 1967, raise several serious concerns. For example, the regulations do not direct Members of Congress to secure firearms that are stored within their offices; as you know, Member offices are open to staff, visitors, and the general public, and a firearm that is not secured could easily end up in the wrong hands.

>Boebert’s official response on Friday urged Pelosi and McCarthy to support the existing regulations, citing safety concerns and stated in part, If Members can’t carry on Capitol grounds, they can’t protect themselves in D.C. while making their way to and from their offices to perform their official duties.

>“I want to carry my firearm to defend myself in one of the top 10 most dangerous cities in America, Washington D.C.” Boebert told CBS4 Friday. “A typical day in the life of a United States Representative does not include armored vehicles or personal Capitol Hill police escorts. I will be alone a lot walking to and from the capitol to my home, each and every day that I’m working here, and I will be my own security.”

>Boebert said her advocacy for the right to carry stems from working at her restaurant, Shooters, in Rifle where staff open carry in accordance with Colorado law.

https://denver.cbslocal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15909806/2021/01/BOEBERT-LETTER.jpg
>>
https://denver.cbslocal.com/wp-content/uploads/sites/15909806/2021/01/BOEBERT-LETTER.jpg

>“I began to open carry because I saw a need to. There was an altercation where a man was brutally beaten, and he lost his life. That immediately prompted the question in me, how will I protect everyone, how will I protect the people that are around me,” said Boebert.

>When she arrived in D.C. for Freshman orientation, she said she immediately inquired about carrying her gun.

>“I asked the Sergeant in Arms and the Capitol Hill Chief of Police exactly what the rules were. There was a lot of DC double talk that took place there and it left me kind of unsure of the exact rules of carrying in congress.”

>When she found out she could, she took her conceal and carry class in D.C. and is currently awaiting a permit.

>“…and now I am here to secure the rights, the liberties, for all Americans and that includes myself,” she said.

>Of the 21 Democrats who signed the letter asking for a firearm ban, none were from Colorado but at least one says who says Boebert’s efforts are nothing more than a stunt.

https://twitter.com/RepJasonCrow/status/1345130107602665474

>On Friday, U.S. Rep. Jason Crow (D-Aurora), said in a Tweet, “@laurenboebert is disrespecting the Capitol Police. Her desire to carry a gun at the Capitol is a political stunt. The USCP are professionals and I have rarely felt safer. I should know. I’ve carried a gun for work. If Boebert wants to talk safety, I have legislation to discuss.”

>Boebert said she will continue to advocate for Second Amendment rights where she can and believes that the latest response from Democrats means they’re finally taking her seriously.
>>
>“On the campaign trail I think one of my biggest criticisms was, you aren’t going to be able to accomplish anything. You are one of 435 members, you will be a freshman, you don’t have the qualifications, the education, you don’t have the experience that other members of congress have, everyone will ignore you and you will not be able to be effective,” she continued, “I’m already proving them wrong and really that is a credit to the people who sent me here. They believed in me and I believe in them.”

>The Democrats who signed the letter asking for a firearm ban, want it included in the House rules package lawmakers will vote on when the new Congress is sworn in, Sunday.
>>
Ever heard of separation of powers? Lawmakers make laws, judges carry them out, cops are allowed to carry guns to enforce them.
>>
>>757927
And? All Americans have a basic human right that is protected by the constitution to keep and bear arms. She isn't saying she wants to be a cop and arrest people, she is saying she wants to exercise her right to carry a firearm for the next time a Sanders supporter tries to assassinate Republicans at a softball game.
>>
>>757935
>basic human right
lmao
>>
>>757819
Bottom line: if she's not being provided with an armed escort then she should be allowed to carry a firearm for protection. As should everyone. When the hell is the left going to learn that their gun free zones do not work?
>>
>>757935
>>757937
Here we go again with you two splitting the argument into what is or isn't a human right. What if we took the human part out and replaced it with American so you can stop arguing semantics?
>>
>>757937
Did you get permission from your queen to hold that opinion, slave?
>>757944
Rights don't come from the government and the way the first and second amendments are written they don't actually grant rights, just limit government. See "congress shall make no law..." or "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
>>
>>757946
Whatever, can we just keep the scope on American rights? Otherwise this is just going to muddy the waters. What's going to happen is you're going to insist that gun rights are human rights, other anons going to say "lmao you have rights to guns but not free healthcare. Muh UN. Muh National Guard." and we're going to get nowhere in this thread, because we'll be arguing that human rights should apply to the whole planet and what those rights should be.
>>
>>757944
That would imply that Amerimutts are humans.
>>
>>757935
>for the next time a Sanders supporter tries to assassinate Republicans at a softball game.
wut
>>
>>757952
Beings who live outside the USA are subhuman serfs who don't have rights. Calling is "an American right" is dumb because it makes it seem like it was granted by the government and that the government could revoke it. The US government can do no such thing and a repeal of the 2nd Amendment wouldn't mean Americans could no longer own guns, it would mean the federal government was no longer a valid government and all their laws would be void.
>>757955
Did you get permission from your queen to hold that opinion, slave?
>>
>>757958
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2017_Congressional_baseball_shooting
In 2017 a sanders supporter tried to shoot up a baseball practice that congressmen were at because he was upset he couldn't own slaves or that sanders didn't win or some shit, but being a democrat he had a limp wrist and didn't manage to kill anyone and died in the resulting fire fight
>>
>>757961
>He belonged to numerous political Facebook groups, including those named "Terminate the Republican Party", "The Road To Hell Is Paved With Republicans", and "Donald Trump is not my President."[57]
nice
>>
>>757978
Well he was right, he went to hell by going through republicans and as a dead man, Trump was not his president
>>
>>757959
What part of "well regulated militia" in the 2nd Ammendment do you not understand? Currently, the republicans deep in the pocket of the NRA (an organisation with only 5,000,000 members) refuse to enact any regulation of popguns. So an organisation, funded almost entirely by gun manufacturers and suppliers, with a membership comprising 1.5% of the American population, literally and figuratively holds a gun to the head of 98.5% of the population, AND DISCHARGES ROUNDS TO THOSE HEADS FREQUENTLY!

Folks, something is very, very wrong here.
>>
>>758033
>What part of "well regulated militia" in the 2nd Ammendment do you not understand?
The Heller decision already affirmed that the right to keep and bear arms does not require the condition of militia service. This is settled law. COPE.
> Currently, the republicans deep in the pocket of the NRA (an organisation with only 5,000,000 members) refuse to enact any regulation of popguns. So an organisation, funded almost entirely by gun manufacturers and suppliers, with a membership comprising 1.5% of the American population, literally and figuratively holds a gun to the head of 98.5% of the population, AND DISCHARGES ROUNDS TO THOSE HEADS FREQUENTLY!
The NRA is primarily funded by membership fees and donations, not gun makers. the NSSF is the gun maker lobby. The GOP is in the pockets of their constituents who go out and primary any republican who isn't pro gun. That is literally how sanders got into congress, his GOP opponent said he supported an AWB, Sanders said he was against the brady bill and the NRA helped sanders get elected. The power of the NRA is not funding, but voters. Anti gun groups spend much more than the NRA and are funded by Billionaires like Michael Bloomberg or the CEO of Levi jeans, but I bet you love that the dems are all literally in Bloomberg's pockets and taking his money. You think the 99.9% should have their rights stripped from them by the millionaires and billionaires
>>
>>758038
>This is settled law
Roe v. Wade is "settled law" too. Iow, there is no settled law. Cope.

>The NRA is primarily funded by membership fees and donations, not gun makers.
Wrong. Stop advocating 1.5% of Americans belonging to an organization funded by the gun industry should be able to hold 98.5% of Americans hostage to their freewheeling efforts to put automatic weapons in the hands of anyone who can walk.

https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1%3famp
>>
Can history just repeat itself already and get to the part where congressmen start dueling?
>>
>>758066
>Roe v. Wade is "settled law" too. Iow, there is no settled law. Cope.
I'm not the one who has to overturn precedent here. I am also the one with the courts on my side. COPE.
>Wrong. Stop advocating 1.5% of Americans belonging to an organization funded by the gun industry should be able to hold 98.5% of Americans hostage to their freewheeling efforts to put automatic weapons in the hands of anyone who can walk.
Got a source on that? Meanwhile in the real world, anti gunner groups are funded by billionaires and outspend pro gun groups
https://www.opensecrets.org/news/2018/10/2018-gun-control-outspends-nra-rights/
Hell, you probably work for one. They are influential. They got the NJ governor to ban gun sales for a week with just one email, before he cucked out when the NRA sued him.
https://www.ammoland.com/2020/09/moms-demand-actions-theyre-not-what-they-claim/#axzz6YEutWahN
>https://www.businessinsider.com/gun-industry-funds-nra-2013-1%3famp
this link goes to a 404
>>
>>758033
>Muh NRA buying congress!!!
>Pay no attention to the Bloomberg behind the curtain!
>>
>>758033
Id rather have an organization in the pocket of domestic gun makers than than an organization in the pocket of china and foreign interests
Disney had massive chinese business stake holders and donate to democratic party 10x the rate of republican
Fuck a party that takes money from traitors
If I voted I'd vote for a party that takes domestic money any day.
>>
>>758066
>>758033
They really don't give you retards anything to work with besides these retarded scripts with false information
>>
>>758033
1. 2A says "...the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed". The right belongs to the people, not militias. The mention of militias is explaining one reason why the right should not be infringed, it is not the end-all-be-all of the right.
2. You cannot hold innocent people as guilty for other people's crimes. To deprive a peaceful law abiding person of their right because of what someone else has done is a gross violation of the concept of inalienable rights; a person does not lose their rights unless they do something to warrant losing that right. Those people are not holding a gun to your head nor have they discharged it.
>>
>>758033
This sounds like a pre written rant for a social media platform. Lots of style and emotion, lots of bluster, very little truth.
>>
>>757961
There was also that other looney who tackled Rand Paul outside his home for whatever reason. Guy was a Hillary supporter
>>
>>757927
The same cops retards like you are trying to defund?
You're a apecial kind of /news/ arent you?
>>
>>758089
Hey man.
Disney, viacom, news corp, comcast, nbc and warner
These organizations are so big and monolithic they create their official lie/talking point at the top and disseminate it down the tree.
That's why nearly every news stations use the same language/wording/phrases/talking points
They are all owned by the same corporate masters

That anon though, if he doesn't have a script you have to realize that the idiots who keep hearing the same lie from different places and aren't able to tell it's bullshit will parrot it.
Granted, his post reads like a 50 cent party post, or otherwise shill post, not that of a genuine idiot
>>
>>757937
Yes, the right to self-defense.
>>
>>757819
Is this about that retard from CO? Yeah I wouldn’t want to be around someone like her who is soo likely to have an AD due to absolute neglegance.
>>
>>757819
>Performative GOP shithead wants to carry a gun inside the state house to perform and virtue signal to all her GOP shithead supporters that she loves guns
>Performative Dems file performative legislation to perform and virtue signal to their Dem supporters that GOP shitheads are bad and guns are bad
>Both parties circle jerk on Twitter and nothing happens

Wow. News.
>>
>>759153
>>when the realization hits like a truck
>>
>>759115
impossible to do without a gun. this message has been brought to you by the Colt Foundation. Colt, when you think defense, think Colt. Trusted since 1776.
>>
>>759153
She is standing up for her basic human rights and dems are signaling once again that they don't think conservatives are humans
>>
>>759172
You are about 70 years off there. And the saying is "got made all men, Samuel Colt made them equal". How do you expect a woman or a cripple or an old to protect themselves from a fit 200 linebacker thug who wants to harm them?
>>
>>759173
Conservatives are retards and this woman ever tried to use her firearm, she'd almost certainly shoot an innocent person, or herself, than some perpetrator. What a dumb bitch.
>>
>>759153
Pretty much this. She's in the right, but 2A supporters could have picked someone who was more than "LOL Guns! I'm from a town named Rifle!"

>>759148
It would be an ND of it's her fault. AD is when the gun itself is defective.

>>759178
Please don't call the police to help you if you're in danger. They just bring more guns.
>>
>>759178
Do you have data to back up that assertion?
>>
>>759173
>She is standing up for her basic human rights
Carrying a firearm into a government building is not a basic human right you absolute dipshit. Seriously, you've been spamming this dumbfuck talking point on this board for weeks and at this point I'm not sure if you actually believe this or you're just some deranged NRA shill whose job it is to pretend like performative bullshit like this is actually relevant to the daily lives of Americans. It isn't. This is moronic political theater from both sides meant to capitalize on this mindless "culture war" narrative that the entire country has been baptized in. Also, the "conservatives aren't human" pearl-clutching would probably land home for more people if modern day Republican politicians weren't actually inhumanly cruel seditionists who were trying to overthrow democracy and crush the entire country beneath the heel of their Trumpian death cult. If conservatives acted more like humans it would be easier to defend them.
>>
>>759231
>Carrying a firearm into a government building is not a basic human right
What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard for your chinese brain to understand, retard?
>Seriously, you've been spamming this dumbfuck talking point on this board for weeks
There are about 900 tdrumpft is finished threads. Go post in one of those or make your own thread if you are upset about these news threads on /news/.
> at this point I'm not sure if you actually believe this or you're just some deranged NRA shill
Why would the NRA need to get shills? People are actually pro gun. It is anti gun groups that have been shown to pay people to shill and coordinate their shilling
>whose job it is to pretend like performative bullshit like this is actually relevant to the daily lives of Americans. It isn't.
gun control laws have effects on people's lives. Stopping them is very important.
>This is moronic political theater from both sides meant to capitalize on this mindless "culture war" narrative that the entire country has been baptized in.
Dems should stop trying to ban guns then.
>Also, the "conservatives aren't human" pearl-clutching would probably land home for more people if modern day Republican politicians weren't actually inhumanly cruel seditionists who were trying to overthrow democracy and crush the entire country beneath the heel of their Trumpian death cult. If conservatives acted more like humans it would be easier to defend them.
conservatives aren't the ones dressing in all black and masks and murdering truck drivers for being white
>>
>>759201
>Pretty much this. She's in the right, but 2A supporters could have picked someone who was more than "LOL Guns! I'm from a town named Rifle!"
Why? Her existence shows just how much we hate the policies of dems that we would pick her and her husband who shows his dick to teens over anyone they would put up.
Also see >>758067 who is another pro gun congressman who fought the IRS after Obongo tried to extort him for $300k
>>
>>759153
i think the issue is given she's clearly not disciplined to have a gun, there's the risk of her using it or it accidentally going off.
Hence Democrats have an actual concern, especially since she's a Trumpfag and they're more openly embracing violence.
>>
>>757946
You have the right to bear arms. Congress has the right to decide which arms you can bear. Sometimes it's nothing.

Learn karate bitch
>>
>>758079
Fuck either option. A lesser evil is still evil.
>>
>>759234
>What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard for your chinese brain to understand, retard?
It is infringed. Every single day. You can't carry a gun into a courthouse. You can't own a gun if you're a felon. You can't own an automatic firearm unless you have specific clearance from the ATF. You can't put a vertical grip on a gun under a certain barrel length. This is the basic legislation that everyone as a society has agreed upon. If you want to live in some anarcho-primitavist constitutional death hole then move to the fucking woods.

>There are about 900 tdrumpft is finished threads.
And you de-rail every single one of them with your "guns is a human right" horseshit.

>Why would the NRA need to get shills? People are actually pro gun.
Because the NRA is a multi-million dollar organization with special interests in politics and corporate influence. They make money off of scared dipshits like you thinking the government is sending psychic reptilians to rape your children unless you have an AR-15 with a 60 round drum to protect yourself. Also, you're not pro-gun. You're anti-democrat. Your gun position is incoherent you just cling onto it as a wedge issue to use as a cudgel against democrats. You don't actually give a shit about anybody in society or else you wouldn't be so toxically incorrect about literally everything you say.

>conservatives aren't the ones dressing in all black and masks and murdering truck drivers for being white
They're just the ones enabling a multi-billion dollar police state to kidnap citizens off the streets, monitor them with drones and encouraging all of their followers to act as human virophages and kill hundreds of thousands of people in the country with a communicable disease out of spite against democrats. Conservatives are pathological cultists who want everyone to die for the glory of the state. Leftists couldn't even scratch the surface of the amount of damage the right has done to our country.
>>
>>758091
1. It's the right of Congress to decide what arms you can bear though
2. No one is holding innocent people guilty. It's just law. By that logic, murder laws exist to hold innocent people "guilty" for another murderer's crimes. Is it really "guilt" or equal application of the law?
>>
>>759244
>Congress has the right to decide which arms you can bear. Sometimes it's nothing.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is too complex for you? Congress has no right to regulate the private ownership or sale of arms
>>
>>759174
...uaing anything else?
>>
>>759239
>i think the issue is given she's clearly not disciplined to have a gun, there's the risk of her using it or it accidentally going off.
based on what data?
>>
>>759251
>1. It's the right of Congress to decide what arms you can bear though
Congress doesn't have rights. The government doesn't have rights. The government is not a person.
>2. No one is holding innocent people guilty. It's just law. By that logic, murder laws exist to hold innocent people "guilty" for another murderer's crimes. Is it really "guilt" or equal application of the law?
Denying people their basic human rights is holding innocent people guilty
>>
>>759234
>What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard for your chinese brain to understand, retard?
Congress determines what arms they can infringe on though. You can bear arms anytime: your actual arms. Everything else Congress decides.

Learn karate bitch
>>
>>759255
Such as?
>>
>>759254
>Congress has no right to regulate the private ownership or sale of arms
Yes it does. Citizens can't own surface to air missles for a very good reason. This constitutional absolutism you're peddling is beyond fucking retarded. The framers of our country made the constitution a living document specifically so it could address issues that might change over time - like gun ownership. You are unironically an enemy of the constitution because your positions contradict the purpose it is supposed to serve.
>>
>>759254
>What part of "shall not be infringed" is too complex for you?
What part of "Congress has the right to decide which arms you can bear" is too complex to you? These things are not mutually exclusive. You can bear arms, but Congress chooses what arms you bear. Sometimes the only arms you get are the two beside you.

Learn karate bitch
>>
>>759239
Lol chang! Nice!
She's "untrained to use weapon"
Very good claim, very hard to disprove when one overlooks that the claim was never initially substantiated

You could even go the extra step of finding a quote or sound bite of someone saying she is untrained. that gives you the benefit of the doubt because now there is another source saying she is untrained and you can use it to substantiate your initial claim
>>
>>759245
No argument here.
It doesn't matter how you compare diarrhea to runny poop, they are still both shit
>>
>>759246
>It is infringed. Every single day. You can't carry a gun into a courthouse. You can't own a gun if you're a felon. You can't own an automatic firearm unless you have specific clearance from the ATF. You can't put a vertical grip on a gun under a certain barrel length.
Yes, all gun laws are unconstitutional. I agree. The SCOTUS needs to strike them down.
>This is the basic legislation that everyone as a society has agreed upon.
Clearly everyone has not agreed upon this if we are arguing it right now.
>And you de-rail every single one of them with your "guns is a human right" horseshit.
I have not posted in the vast majority of threads on /news/. And if you are that upset, ignore my posts, retard.
>Because the NRA is a multi-million dollar organization with special interests in politics and corporate influence.
The NRA is beholden to its members. You are thinking of the NSSF.
>They make money off of scared dipshits like you thinking the government is sending psychic reptilians to rape your children unless you have an AR-15 with a 60 round drum to protect yourself.
They get donations from people who don't want fuckers like you denying them their rights.
> Also, you're not pro-gun. You're anti-democrat.
You can be two things at once. I am anti democrat because I am pro gun and the democrats want to deny me my rights.
>Your gun position is incoherent you just cling onto it as a wedge issue to use as a cudgel against democrats.
Nope. My position is the government has no standing to regulate private arm ownership.
>else you wouldn't be so toxically incorrect about literally everything you say.
I am always correct, retard.
>They're just the ones enabling a multi-billion dollar police state to kidnap citizens off the streets, monitor them with drones
Dems voted for the patriot act.
>>
>>759260
Maybe you throw your colostomy bag on the floor and cause the thug to slip in your shit as he rushes you? Idk man I'm not a woman or a cripple. Then again, why are there so much NFL dropouts resorting to crime in your area?
>>
>>759246
>and kill hundreds of thousands of people in the country with a communicable disease out of spite against democrats.
Yup, fuck dems.
> Leftists couldn't even scratch the surface of the amount of damage the right has done to our country.
Leftists cannot fix or create anything. Only destroy and murder. The goal of leftists is slavery of the people.
>>
>>759259
>Congress determines what arms they can infringe on though.
Not legitimately. Just because authoritarian human rights deniers are ignoring the laws does not make them right. Have fun when we destroy your tyranny in the courts.
>>
>>759261
>Yes it does.
nope
> Citizens can't own surface to air missles for a very good reason.
You literally can for a $200 tax stamp.
>This constitutional absolutism you're peddling is beyond fucking retarded. The framers of our country made the constitution a living document specifically so it could address issues that might change over time - like gun ownership. You are unironically an enemy of the constitution because your positions contradict the purpose it is supposed to serve
Then change the constitution, fag. Seriously. Come and take it.
>>
>>759258
>Congress doesn't have rights. The government doesn't have rights. The government is not a person.
Good thing they have laws

>Denying people their basic human rights is holding innocent people guilty
This is not denying them their basic human rights. The Constitution did not state what arms you are or aren't entitled to bear, only that you may have the freedom to bear arms, whatever they may be. Congress gets to decide, through its laws, what arms you can bear and what arms you cannot, something the constitution did not specify.
>>
>>759264
>What part of "Congress has the right to decide which arms you can bear" is too complex to you?
Show me what law says those words? Congress has no rights. It isn't a person.
>but Congress chooses what arms you bear.
Nope, congress does not and any laws congress passes to do so are unconstitutional and illegitimate.
>>
>>759267
Yes. So stop choosing runny diarrhea over regular shit. Lesser evil is still evil. Are you agreeing or disagreeing with me?
>>
>>759271
So you don't think women, cripples, or olds should be allowed to defend themselves? Only the physically strong have a right to self defense and they only have that right if they are physically stronger than someone else?
>>
>>759270
>Yes, all gun laws are unconstitutional. I agree. The SCOTUS needs to strike them down.
Sorry, didn't SCOTUS rule in favor of gun laws through the Heller decision? Big oof.
>Clearly everyone has not agreed upon this if we are arguing it right now.
Sorry, your disagreement is irrelevant. Only the agreement of the 9 justices of the SCOTUS matter.
>My position is the government has no standing to regulate private arm ownership.
Move to a different country. You are a citizen of the US you are subject to its laws and legal precedents. Dance monkey dance.
>>
>>759277
>Good thing they have laws
And the supreme law of the land says and I quote "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed".
>This is not denying them their basic human rights.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard for you?
>The Constitution did not state what arms you are or aren't entitled to bear,
It literally does. It says "shall not be infringed". By denying the right to own any arm it is by definition an infringement
>Congress gets to decide, through its laws, what arms you can bear and what arms you cannot,
Nope. The Supreme law of the land says and I quote "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"
>something the constitution did not specify.
The constitution specifies arms. That means all arms.
>>
>>759246
Different Anon, but there is a regulation that members of Congress can carry in the Capitol building. Apparently many were unaware of this and now lost there shit when they found out someone was going to actually do it. Don't quote parts of the NFA, you're not going to win anyone over doing that. The NFA is arbitrary with length requirements and is designed to use a tax to restrict a right. The ATF has been writing it's own regulations to interpret the NFA and is widely regarded as out of bounds among 2A supporters. And the NRA has been largely useless the past 10-15 years and the old fudds will soon all be dead.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/ncna1248771
>>
>>759275
>Not legitimately
How legitimate can legislation get? I'm sorry, even human rights have limits. There is no true freedom. There shouldn't EVER be true freedom. Get used to it. Even the Constitution itself has limits.

>Have fun when we destroy your tyranny in the courts.
Have fun overturning stare decisis
>>
>>759285
>Sorry, didn't SCOTUS rule in favor of gun laws through the Heller decision? Big oof.
Not really, you are thinking of Miller. Heller says it is not within the scope of the case to overturn Miller and as such made a decision based on respecting the precedent of Miller. Miller of course was a kangaroo court who would later say putting Americans in concentration camps in the desert based on race was fine.
>Sorry, your disagreement is irrelevant. Only the agreement of the 9 justices of the SCOTUS matter.
And the justices of the SCOTUS say guns can't be banned if they are in common use and that all arms made after 1790 are also protected by the 2nd amendment.
>Move to a different country. You are a citizen of the US you are subject to its laws and legal precedents.
Americans need not obey the laws of tyrants. Per Thomas Jefferson "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
>>
>>759270
>all gun laws are unconstitutional
I stopped reading right there. No point in going further. I'd participate in more meaningful intellectual engagement by clamping my nuts in a waffle maker then continuing to speak to someone to cripplingly stupid.
>>
>>759276
>Then change the constitution, fag. Seriously. Come and take it.
The constitution has been amended 27 times since it was authored you deranged CHUD. Honestly, how is it you are so willing to fight and die for a document you don't even understand?
>>
>>759290
>How legitimate can legislation get?
Legislation cannot violate the constitution.
> I'm sorry, even human rights have limits. There is no true freedom. There shouldn't EVER be true freedom. Get used to it.
This is your brain on leftism.
>Have fun overturning stare decisis
said the faggot to Thurgood Marshall in 1952.
>>
>>759295
What part of "shall not be infringed" is so hard for you to grasp that you need to give up and throw around insults?
>>
>>759296
Then amend it bitch boy, I am waiting.
>>
>>759276
>nope
You wouldn't be arguing for less gun control here if that were true
>You literally can for a $200 tax stamp.
Tax stamps are not S2A missiles.
>Then change the constitution, fag. Seriously. Come and take it.
No need to change it at all fag. Seriously. Thanks to the Constitution, it allows Congress to make laws that cover the holes left by the Big C itself.
>>
>>759279
>Show me what law says those words? Congress has no rights. It isn't a person.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._Heller

"It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated."

Congress doesn't need rights at all you dumbass. They never were a person. They just pass laws and be done with it.

>Nope, congress does not and any laws congress passes to do so are unconstitutional and illegitimate.
What's your legal argument for that?
>>
>>759303
Is this internet tough guy thing doing it for you? Do you actually give a shit about gun rights or are you just actively looking for opportunities to murder people?
>>
>>759281
Why is there someone they must defend against at all? And why do guns have to be the means to self defense for these people? Is physical strength the only thing you need to save your own skin?
>>
>>759306
>You wouldn't be arguing for less gun control here if that were true
They are passing anti gun laws illegitimately. That doesn't mean they have the right. It means that they are doing things illegitimately.
>Tax stamps are not S2A missiles.
It's a DD, you can buy one and pay $200 and that is it.
>No need to change it at all fag. Seriously. Thanks to the Constitution, it allows Congress to make laws that cover the holes left by the Big C itself.
What part of "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is confusing to you?
>>759308
>"It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated."
Are you quoting a wikipedia summary of something instead of the actual text of the decision? Are you literally retarded?
>Congress doesn't need rights at all you dumbass. They never were a person. They just pass laws and be done with it.
They are not allowed to pass unconstitutional laws. That is why we have a SCOTUS who overturns tyranny.
>What's your legal argument for that?
There is this thing called the constitution and it says and I quote.
"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed"also see "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding." which states that the constitution is the supreme law of the land
>>
>>759310
Why are you accusing everyone who wants to defend their basic human rights to be a murderer?
>>
>>759294
>Not really, you are thinking of Miller...race was fine.
What? I'm just looking at the part where Heller says "It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated". I don't know what case that is referring to but still.
>And the justices of the SCOTUS say guns can't be banned if they are in common use
Now define common use.
>Per Thomas Jefferson "If a law is unjust, a man is not only right to disobey it, he is obligated to do so."
Now define unjust laws.
>>
>>759313
>Why is there someone they must defend against at all?
Because not everyone is the same physical strength and black people like doing crimes and victimizing others.
> And why do guns have to be the means to self defense for these people?
What would you suggest they used instead?
> Is physical strength the only thing you need to save your own skin?
from being assaulted and raped and robbed and murdered by a thug?
>>
>>759300
>Legislation cannot violate the constitution.
Who says it is?
>This is your brain on leftism.
Can't prove lefties wrong, huh?
>said the faggot to Thurgood Marshall in 1952.
What about him?
>>
>>759320
>What? I'm just looking at the part where Heller says "It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that guns and gun ownership would continue to be regulated". I don't know what case that is referring to but still.
Heller does not state what you quoted. You quoted a wikipedia article summary. Please actually quote the heller decision.
>Now define common use.
literally any gun anyone owns.
>Now define unjust laws.
Anything passed by someone with a D next to their name
>>
>>759324
>Who says it is?
Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution
>Can't prove lefties wrong, huh?
you are literally saying people have no freedom.
>What about him?
He overturned stare decisis as a lawyer with the Brown v Board of ed case. Seriously are you not American or did you go to a school for retards? How did they not teach you about brown v board of ed?
>>
>>759320
The end result of Heller was that DC couldn't outright ban gun ownership and Mr Heller could have his pistol. The Miller decision upheld the NFA. Yes, the Heller decision acknowledges gun laws can exist, so you're right about that.
>>
>>759301
Where is the infringement tho??

>>759316
>They are passing anti gun laws illegitimately.
What is the basis of this illegitimacy?
>It's a DD, you can buy one and pay $200 and that is it.
Again, tax stamps are not S2A missiles. Good luck buying one.
>What part of "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed" is confusing to you?
Again, what part of "Congress has the right to decide which arms you can bear" is too complex to you? The Constitution didn't say what arms you could bear. So Congress will.

>Are you quoting a wikipedia summary of something instead of the actual text of the decision? Are you literally retarded?
Is the summary wrong?
>They are not allowed to pass unconstitutional laws. That is why we have a SCOTUS who overturns tyranny.
And SCOTUS affirmed gun control in Heller.
>There is this thing called the constitution...Supreme law of the land.
There is this thing called Article One of the United States Constitution and it says and I quote: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Congress has legislative power alone. It has the power to pass laws, including gun control laws, which you seem so upset about. You did read beyond the 2nd Amendment, right?
>>
>>759321
>Because not everyone is the same physical strength and black people like doing crimes and victimizing others
I was commenting on your crime rates but ok
>What would you suggest they used instead?
A colostomy bag, like I said. Improvise, adapt, overcome
>from being assaulted and raped and robbed and murdered by a thug?
Sure. Don't forget the other flavors of hoodlums out there
>>
>>759325
>Please actually quote the heller decision.
If you insist:

"2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not 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. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56."

>literally any gun anyone owns.
Is it common?
>Anything passed by someone with a D next to their name
You're about 14 letters off down the alphabet son
>>
>>759328
>Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution
And what does that say about the supposed unconstitutionality of gun control laws, specifically?
>you are literally saying people have no freedom.
Its true. You don't have freedom. You have laws.
>He overturned stare decisis as a lawyer with the Brown v Board of ed case.
Just say Brown V. Board, who the fuck talks about the lawyers involved? In any case, what stare decisis was overturned by Brown V. Board? Brown V. Board was adjudicated by the Supreme Court itself. It was rejecting existing law passed by states to restrict desegregation in schools.
>>
>>759343
>Where is the infringement tho??
>the action of limiting or undermining something.
>"the infringement of the right to privacy"
>What is the basis of this illegitimacy?
It violates the second amendment.
>Again, tax stamps are not S2A missiles. Good luck buying one.
Show me the statute banning S2A missiles
>Again, what part of "Congress has the right to decide which arms you can bear" is too complex to you?
Congress does not have rights it isn't a person and gun laws infringe upon people's right to keep and bear arms.
>The Constitution didn't say what arms you could bear. So Congress will.
The constitution says all arms. See Caetano V Massachusetts.
"The Court has held that “the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding,” "
https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/14-10078
>Is the summary wrong?
It is written by leftists so it is purposely dishonest and lacking context.
>And SCOTUS affirmed gun control in Heller.
Not really. The SCOTUS found that gun control laws were not within the scope of the case and that overturning Miller was not within the scope of the case. The scope of the case was "Is there an individual right to keep and bear arms at one's home".
>There is this thing called Article One of the United States Constitution and it says and I quote: "All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of Representatives." Congress has legislative power alone. It has the power to pass laws, including gun control laws, which you seem so upset about. You did read beyond the 2nd Amendment, right?
Congress can only pass laws that do not violate the constitution. Article VI, Paragraph 2
>>
>>759328
>>759328
>q: Who says it is?
>Article VI, Paragraph 2 of the U.S. Constitution
Nice zing vs chang. Finish him!
>He overturned state decisision as a lawyer with the Brown v Board of ed case. Seriously are you not American or did you go to a school for retards?
FATALITY
>>
>>759347
>I was commenting on your crime rates but ok
Because we have a lot of black people who like to do crimes.
>A colostomy bag, like I said. Improvise, adapt, overcome
So no actual suggestion?
>>
>>759350
>If you insist:
Great, you left out the part right before where they say
"None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , 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." because they are bound to Miller and it isn't in the scope of the case to overturn miller. Sure Scalia was being a fucking coward, but I assume part of that was Roberts or Kennedy. Unfortunately for you, the next case that does show up for the SCOTUS the 5 good judges won't care about tiptoeing around roberts as all 5 have made it clear they think miller should be overturned.
>Is it common?
if it goes bang when you pull the trigger it is common.
>You're about 14 letters off down the alphabet son
I am not
>>
>>759355
>And what does that say about the supposed unconstitutionality of gun control laws, specifically?
It says that federal law must be in pursuance with the constitution and the constitution says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
>Its true. You don't have freedom. You have laws.
That might be true in China, but it ain't how we operate here in the USA.
>Just say Brown V. Board, who the fuck talks about the lawyers involved?
Thurgood Marshall was literally the first black man to become a scotus judge because he was such a good lawyer in arguing cases before the SCOTUS. He argued 32 cases in front of the SCOTUS and won 29 of them. Put some respect on his fucking name, you piece of shit, Chang. What kind of shit hole retard school did not teach you about the greatest lawyer in the history of the United States?
> In any case, what stare decisis was overturned by Brown V. Board? Brown V. Board was adjudicated by the Supreme Court itself. It was rejecting existing law passed by states to restrict desegregation in schools.
It overturned Plessy v. Ferguson and the separate but equal decision that allowed for segregation in schools
>>759360
thank you
>>
>>759178
>What a dumb bitch.
>we're the progressive party for the rights of minorities
>women are too incompetent to safely handle a gun
>it's not sexist when I do it

Speaking from experience, women are far easier to teach firearms to than men. Just FYI.
>>
>>759231
>If conservatives acted more like humans it would be easier to defend them.
I wouldn't throw stones if I were you. How many buildings got torched in 2020? How many people assaulted? How many killed? Don't act like your side has been sweet and innocent angels this whole time.
>in before what riots?
>>
>>759259
>Learn karate bitch
You hear that Grandma? If someone breaks in at 3am just use that Karate I taught you.
>>
>>759313
>Why is there someone they must defend against at all?
Because crime exists in every country in the world? Are you serious?
>And why do guns have to be the means to self defense for these people?
Because it's the most effective. Tasers and mace don't always work, as we've seen several times.
> Is physical strength the only thing you need to save your own skin?
It is when democrats say you can't be trusted with a weapon to protect yourself. Fucking New York doesn't even let you carry pepper spray without jumping through hoops.
>>
>>759347
>A colostomy bag, like I said. Improvise, adapt, overcome
This is just fucking ridiculous.
>>
>>759350
>Is it common?
Almost 50% of the world's guns are owned by Americans, and the AR-15 is the most popular rifle in America. I'd say it's common.
>>
>>757944
>Here we go again with you destroying my entire argument in one reply
Yeah that seems to be the pattern.
>>
What nobody is saying out loud here: guns to protect us from communists.
>>
>>759343
>Again, tax stamps are not S2A missiles. Good luck buying one.
I don't know if anyone's bought an S2A missile, but explosives can be - and are - purchased.

Take this video for example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJTaa0vCtUE

Everything here, from the full-autos to the machine guns to the explosives to the tank and artillery, are legally owned.
>>
>>759385
In NJ it is literally illegal to carry anything outside your home for the purpose of self defense other than 3/4th of an oz of pepper spray
>>
>>759430
>3/4th of an oz of pepper spray
Can anyone explain to me how democrats are supposed to be the champions of minorities and women, but then they do everything to make women defenseless and get away with it?
>>
>>759442
I mean in NJ there is literally a congress woman who wants to ban concealed carry nationally because her sons robbed a toys R us with an AR-15 and she doesn't want them getting shot next time they do an armed robbery where children are present. You also cannot legally use force to prevent a carjacking in NJ unless you also fear for your own life.
>>
>>759446
There's a bill in NY state assembly to ban soft body armor. And Schumer has also tried to pass body armor bans in the Senate. These people need to go spend some time with their constituents in gun-free zones.
>>
>>759463
>guns are dangerous
>we need to prevent people from wearing body armor that could protect them from guns
>>
>>759442
They're champions of groups as classes, not individuals. They don't give a shit what happens to individual people, they'll even harm the majority of the class so long as they think the class will benefit.
>>
>>759265
Nice try Ivan
She's a Republican and fetishizes guns.
Recipe for disaster.
>>
>>759430
Got a problem with state's rights?
>>
>>759531
States don't have the right to deny individuals their basic human right. We already had a case about this. It is called McDonald v. City of Chicago. There is a case about this in the 9th circuit too of states like NJ and Hawaii who ban open carry and are also NO ISSUE ccw states. the 9th circuit said it wasn't allowed and the 3rd circuit said it was. This will likely lead to a SCOTUS case and New York State Rifle & Pistol Association Inc. v. City of New York shows that based Alito has had enough of his home state of NJ's bullshit even mentioning NJ law specifically during oral hearings.
>>
>>759531
Yes, states cannot overrule the constitution and its amendments. That's what makes slavery illegal in all the states and guarantees every citizen the right to vote. You want to throw that all away so that you can ban guns?
>>
>>759527
Bring back chang
At least chang had better arguments than simply "no, you, Ivan"
>>
>>759527
Yeah because it's the Republicans that are fucking up with guns, right? The democrats and people on the left know everything about firearms and have never fucked up, right?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y44Zr-oPY8A
>>
>>759540
Please silence yourself, schizo.
>>759608
States are free to interpret the constitution. Problem with that?
>>
>>759619
Not giving you a view, not "smashing that like", not subscribing.

Fuck off

>>>/b/
>>
>>759623
Why yes, I do have a problem with slavery, disenfranchisement, and other rights' violations. Legally states are not in fact free to interpret the constitution as they wish. The SCOTUS ruled that the constitution is the supreme law of the land, and that their interpretations of it are legal truth in all states.
>>
>>759624
It's okay. I know. The truth hurts. Just let it out.
>>
>>759623
>States are free to interpret the constitution.
You hear that? Slavery is back on the menu boys!
>>
>>759626
>>759647
I guess you should write your state representative about how NJ laws are unconstitutional. Shouldn't be a problem for a stacked SCOTUS to agree with you. I know your records in courts are fucking terrible lately but this should be a slam dunk case.
>>
>>759649
I can't even imagine being as dense as you are
>>
>>759619
Nice proof that we need stricter gun control.
>>
>>759660
Why? Blacks are literally shooting themselves in the foot. What's the problem?
>>
>>759653
I can't imagine being as afraid as you are
>>
>>759664
Proof we need stricter gun control.
Why are you racist?
>>
>>759668
What gun control law would have prevented this?

>Why are you racist?
Actually I feel less racist and more snarky than anything.

Because it's not like the internet exists, and you can't take five seconds to google information about a firearm. Democrats are still referring to magazines as clips, semi-autos as full-autos, and standard capacity as high capacity. They still think that the 'A' in AR-15 stands for Assault (pro-tip: it doesn't).

And these retards from the NFAC couldn't be bothered to look up the four rules of gun safety... four very simple rules ... that would have prevented this. Of course nobody got charged for the ND - if this was a racist white Republican everyone involved would have been arrested and CNN would have a field day. Instead - "Oh it was just an accident. Nothing to see here."

Then the leader of the NFAC put out a (hilarious) video full of disinformation, even referring to the AR-15 as a bullpup (protip: it isn't). Then just last month this same guy got in trouble for "allegedly aiming his rifle at police officers during protests about the Breonna Taylor killing." This guy is quite the piece of work, a former National Guard soldier for 17 years and leaves a private? Fucking kek.

But I digress. What law would have prevented him, and his followers, from doing any of this? Bonus points if you can think of a law that won't be interpreted as racist.
>>
>>759668
If I may further elaborate if there's any group that needs stricter gun control, then it's leftists. People on the right don't have these issues.

I've already mentioned the NFAC and their leader acting a fool. In addition to that just last year alone you've had two assassinations by leftists (Dolloff and Reinoehl) that were caught on camera, an Antifag who got wasted by an Army sarge for pointing an AK at him (Foster), another antifag in Utah who shot a driver for trying to get through their roadblock (Taggart), and multiple examples of leftist brandishing firearms at people - Minneapolis, MN, Lansing, MI, etc.

Now on the other hand even when people on the right are protesting in full battle rattle with scary assault weapons, even they aren't STUPID enough to point a gun at anyone they're not willing to shoot, let alone at police (Grandmaster Jay). You've had two instances where right-wingers have shot someone at protests, Rittenhouse and Baca, and both of those you can at least argue self-defense (we've had 50+ threads in /news/ about both of these guys so I'd rather not argue ITT). Also what is it with you people and skateboards?

tl;dr leftists can't into guns and should be banned.
>>
>>759649
I've never been to court, is that some kind of fantasy you had or something? But SCOTUS may not always go full thrust on 2A but if NJ really did ban anything but pepper spray, I think they'd rule against that. IRL they just require permits, people can pack heat. Not a fan of needing a permission slip, but at least the spirit of 2A lives on.
>>
>>759359
>It violates the second amendment.
How?
>Show me the statute banning S2A missiles
You are misreading me for the third time. Buying a stamp is one thing. Buying a S2A missile is another. Good luck buying it.
>Congress does not have rights
Congress has the right to make laws as per Article 1 of the Constitution. It does not need to be a person. Gun laws do not infringe upon the 2A as per Heller and literally every gun law decision beforehand.
>The constitution says all arms.
Where?
>See Caetano V Massachusetts
It establishes that modern arms, like a taser still count as arms despite not existing in the 1700s. Now, what does it say about Congress deciding which arms can be beared?
>It is written by leftists so it is purposely dishonest and lacking context.
You can see for yourself at " Pp. 54–56" of the Heller decision.
>The scope of the case was "Is there an individual right to keep and bear arms at one's home".
Ignore the case. I'm talking about the courts explicit affirmation of gun control laws, as described in Heller. As if the continued existence of such laws wasn't proof enough.
>Congress can only pass laws that do not violate the constitution.
Now prove it violates the constitution
>>
>>759361
>Because we have a lot of black people who like to do crimes.
Or because your whole country is inherently violent and guns turn it into a literal powder keg?
I don't see black mass shooters I see white. Don't see you stopping your own kind
>So no actual suggestion?
How about a goalpost for self defense, you seem to be handy with carrying one at least.
>>
>>759368
>Great, you left out the part...should be overturned
And here's the wham line: >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.
The debate now is determining what arms count as common use. Keep your eyes peeled.
>if it goes bang when you pull the trigger it is common.
What? Function is not ubiquity, what made you link these two things together?
>I am not
no u
>>
>>759373
>It says that federal law must be in pursuance with the constitution and the constitution says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
And yet still you have to prove gun control's unconstitutionality my God. Going in circles are we? I told you that you have the right to bear arms, but Congress has the right to choose what arms you can bear. And yet you repeat the 2A like a broken record instead of proving me or the judges wrong otherwise. Refute me and them
>That might be true in China, but it ain't how we operate here in the USA.
Your nation is a land of laws. Laws restrict freedom. Therefore you have no true freedom. Ironically your legalistic country makes your freedom even more diminished, perhaps more than China too...
>Put some respect on his fucking name, you piece of shit, Chang.
Pop a vein Cletus. It's not the person that matters it's what he does. Focus on that instead of sperging out. Good for him tho
>It overturned Plessy v. Ferguson
You got me there. But consider the doctrine of "separate but equal" at question in Plessy and in Brown. That principle was found to be unconstitutional by Brown v. Board and should have been held the same by Plessy. The judges in Plessy affirmed an inherently unconstitutional law then, since equality would mean a lack of distinguishing qualities to separate people on.

What is inherently unconstitutional about gun laws though? These gun laws exist in the gaps of the 2A, which the Constitution permits Congress to fill, here or in other amendments. The Big C itself was never meant to be all there is to a legal code, and shouldn't. Nor does it permit unlimited rights without restraint, and shouldn't. You ask otherwise.
>>
>>759382
Shoulda done her cardio instead of watching reruns of Happy Days.

>>759382
>Because crime exists in every country in the world? Are you serious?
At your level, its fucking Thunderbolt. Can you believe that there are countries where people dont even lock their doors? Blame your leaders for not imitating them, instead of doubling down and adding more guns to the mix. You realize loose gun laws benefit crooks too?
>Because it's the most effective.
Indeed. Also the most lethal. And you want more of these highly effective lethal killing tools around? Your homicide rates are high enough. Who said anything about them being in the hands of "good guys", whatever they are?
>It is when democrats say you can't be trusted with a weapon to protect yourself
You said it yourself, a weapon. We don't need more weapons on the street, in anybody hands, not just the "good guys".

You can't control people behavior, short of mind control. You can always control what they use or have access to, more easily. You can't force people to stop committing violence, but you can always take away their means of violence. Defang the fucking tiger for Gods sake.
>>
>>759389
Y not?

>>759390
What you say is common is irrelevant to what the courts say is common, whenever they get around to it. You gotta know how to categorize arms, then determine how much of it is out there, then see how they are used and in what contexts, not just merely owned. Even this will be an oversimplification of the task to come.

>>759402
Yeah, I even saw a legally owned Pipe Bomb certified by the ATF too. I can't imagine all the hurdles to jump through though. And meeting the legal requirements to ownership is one thing, finding the thing itself is a whole new ball game. Which is why S2A missiles and the like won't ever be owned by private individuals - no one will sell it to you, which kinda makes tax stamps pointless.
>>
>>759540
>States don't have the right to deny individuals their basic human right.
That's up for legal debate

>>759680
Laws mandating heavy triggers
>>
>>759735
>Laws mandating heavy triggers
>Deliberately making guns for difficult to shoot accurately is safety guys!
>Plus I don't understand that you can adjust triggers with regular tools and materials and no special skills,
God you're a fucktard.
>>
>>759728
>Shoulda done her cardio instead of watching reruns of Happy Days.
I'm not going to even bother with this victim blaming horseshit.
>Can you believe that there are countries where people dont even lock their doors?
Such as? Name them. Sure as fuck isn't the UK. Or Australia. Sweden. Germany.
>Your homicide rates are high enough.
We aren't even in the top 15. Russia has more gun crime than us and they have very strict gun laws.
>We don't need more weapons on the street, in anybody hands, not just the "good guys".
This is some naive shit. You're not getting rid of them. You're just making it harder for good guys to get them and punishing people for protecting themselves.

>>759729
>What you say is common is irrelevant to what the courts say is common, whenever they get around to it.
Why am I even arguing with you then, if our opinion on what is common is irrelevant and courts can just decide what is or isn't common? I gave a damn good reason why guns are common. You haven't given me a reason why they're not.

>which kinda makes tax stamps pointless.
[laughing while owning suppressors]

>>759735
>Laws mandating heavy triggers
Like NYC did with their cops, and made it harder for them to hit their fucking targets. See this is the shit that I'm talking about how google could have told you why your shit idea is shit and you couldn't take ten seconds of your busy schedule to look that up. This is why nogunz should stay nogunz and shut the fuck up about things they will never understand.
>>
>>757819
https://www.politico.com/news/2021/01/04/dc-police-boebert-glock-capitol-454563
>"That Congresswoman will be subjected to the same penalties as anyone else that’s caught on the D.C. streets carrying a firearm," said police chief Robert Contee III.
>>
>>759710
>I don't see black mass shooters I see white.
>Omar S. Thornton
>Nathan Dunlap
>John Allen Muhammad
>Christopher Dorner
>Aaron Alexis
>Everyone in Chicago, D.C., L.A, etc.
>>
>>757819
Good.
>>
>>759735
>>States don't have the right to deny individuals their basic human right.
>That's up for legal debate
No, it isn't. Read the 14th Amendment you literal retard. The McDonald case was about this and says states can't deny people their 2nd amendment rights. It is settled law.
>Laws mandating heavy triggers
This is why the NYPD can't shoot for shit
>>
>>759623
>Please silence yourself, schizo.
Amazing how that is your response to someone who writes out a sourced post because you have no way of actually replying.
>States are free to interpret the constitution. Problem with that?
They are not. See the 14th Amendment. The 14th amendment states that states are bound to the federal bill of rights after they have been sued and the right has been incorporated. The second amendment was incorporated against the states in the McDonald case and since then it is illegal to make laws forbidding people from owning guns in their home or owning handguns. Seriously, learn what you are talking about, Chang.
>>
>>759649
>I know your records in courts are fucking terrible lately
Uh what? Gun rights are 3-0 in the SCOTUS since FDR died. Heller, McDonald, and Caetano all went pro 2A. Caetano went 8-0 pro 2A.
>>759694
NJ is no issue unless you are rich or a former NJ cop. Not even out of state cops can carry here. The only person in Atlantic county allowed to carry a gun is the judge who is responsible for deciding who will be issued with a CCW permit
>>
>>759660
Because some moron pulls the trigger on his gun and shoots himself? Fatal gun accidents are at an all time low.
>>
>>759743
So you want a light enough trigger that shoots if you even look at it funny? Work for your shot you limp wristed fucker. Just make it impossible to modify, or otherwise lighten the trigger. You asked for an answer now take it.
>>
>>759770
>I'm not going to even bother with this victim blaming horseshit.
What victim? She doesn't exist outside of your example. She can take action beyond owning a gat to protect herself.
>Such as? Name them
Scandinavia, for one. Generally most of Europe. Vietnam. Your first world shitholes fall flat compared to these countries.
>We aren't even in the top 15
Where did I mention rankings? You are not better because other countries are worse.
>Russia has more gun crime than us and they have very strict gun laws.
Gun crime, or murder rate? Source? From what I read Russia doesn't break down their murder rates:
https://www.npr.org/sections/parallels/2013/09/19/224043848/the-u-s-has-more-guns-but-russia-has-more-murders
>You're just making it harder for good guys to get them and punishing people for protecting themselves.
And doing the opposite would make it easier for "bad guys" to get them? You have more guns than people, who says only the "good guys" have access? And how about getting rid of the danger to begin with? There are countries where people dont need to fear for their life at home or abroad to need a gun - copy them.

>Why am I even arguing with you then
Because the courts do the implementation of whatever law gets drafted by Congress (someday) to determine what guns are "common". I don't think you're a judge or legislator, neither am I.
>You haven't given me a reason why they're not.
What does it mean by "common" anyways? Common in America, commonly *used* in America, commonly used in X state, in X neighborhood? A gun can be common - in an arms museum, but nowhere else. Wooden sticks are more common than guns, does that mean we can crack down on Glocks already? I can't give you an answer because I don't get to decide in the first place.
>[laughing while owning suppressors
Not an S2A missile though
>Like NYC did with their cops, and made it harder for them to hit their fucking targets
Git gud. Work for your shot. If it makes them less trigger happy...
>>
>>760032
>Scandinavia, for one.
Is this nigga serious?

>Generally most of Europe.
Really? People in Berlin, Paris, or London don't lock their doors? Wow. You are just adorable.

>Vietnam.
>A gun can be common - in an arms museum
>Not an S2A missile though
>Git gud.
I'm not even going to bother with the rest of your bullshit. You are not worth the effort.
>>
>>759680
>>759692
Banning assault rifles, also you mentioned their skin color.
>>
>>759707
>How?
How is "shall not be infringed" still a difficult concept for you, Chang?
>You are misreading me for the third time. Buying a stamp is one thing. Buying a S2A missile is another. Good luck buying it.
You can buy or build a S2A missile. It just requires a $200 tax. It isn't illegal.
>Congress has the right to make laws as per Article 1 of the Constitution. It does not need to be a person.
per the supremacy clause, congress cannot make laws that violate the constitution. I've explained this to you already.
>Gun laws do not infringe upon the 2A as per Heller and literally every gun law decision beforehand.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard for you to understand? Also heller said that other gun laws were not in the scope of the case. The scope of the case for heller was if DC could ban ownership of all handguns.
>Where?
the 2nd amendment.
>It establishes that modern arms, like a taser still count as arms despite not existing in the 1700s. Now, what does it say about Congress deciding which arms can be beared?
It states that arms made after the 1700s are protected by the 2nd amendment and made it so states could not ban them.
>You can see for yourself at " Pp. 54–56" of the Heller decision.
And I've shown you the quote that shows up right before it talking about the scope of the case, chang. You are going in circles.
>Ignore the case. I'm talking about the courts explicit affirmation of gun control laws, as described in Heller. As if the continued existence of such laws wasn't proof enough.
BECAUSE OVERTURNING PREVIOUS DECISIONS WERE NOT PART OF THE SCOPE OF THE CASE AS THE DECISION SAYS.
>Now prove it violates the constitution
What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard for you to understand?
>>
>>760048
Banning assault rifles would prevent negligent discharges?
>>
>>759710
>Or because your whole country is inherently violent and guns turn it into a literal powder keg?
No, half of all murders are done by blacks. The murder rate of white people in the USA is about the same as belgium. There is no correlation between gun ownership rate and murder rate on a state by state or nation by nation basis.
https://medium.com/handwaving-freakoutery/everybodys-lying-about-the-link-between-gun-ownership-and-homicide-1108ed400be5
>I don't see black mass shooters I see white. Don't see you stopping your own kind
If you go by the GVA definition that says there are hundreds of mass shootings each year, blacks do the lion's share of them.
also see >>759777
>How about a goalpost for self defense, you seem to be handy with carrying one at least.
You are the one trying to say people don't have a right to self defense
>>
>>759714
>And here's the wham line: >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.
>The debate now is determining what arms count as common use. Keep your eyes peeled.
Because they are referencing miller.
>What? Function is not ubiquity, what made you link these two things together?
Semi auto rifles have been in common use among the american people since 1905. Semi auto handguns since like the 1880s.
>>
>>759726
>And yet still you have to prove gun control's unconstitutionality
What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult for you?
>my God. Going in circles are we?
We are change
>I told you that you have the right to bear arms, but Congress has the right to choose what arms you can bear.
And you have no authority and congress does not have rights. It is not a person. Congress does not have the right to tell me jack shit.
>And yet you repeat the 2A like a broken record instead of proving me or the judges wrong otherwise. Refute me and them
I've refuted you multiple times, Chang.
>Your nation is a land of laws. Laws restrict freedom. Therefore you have no true freedom. Ironically your legalistic country makes your freedom even more diminished, perhaps more than China too...
Our nation is a land where the government serves at the pleasure of the people, where into our charter we enshrined basic human rights. Your's is a land of slaves and masters.
>Pop a vein Cletus. It's not the person that matters it's what he does. Focus on that instead of sperging out. Good for him tho
And what he fucking did was win 29 of 32 cases he argued in front of the SCOTUS (which even just arguing 32 is beyond amazing) and became the first black man to be on the SCOTUS. Who he was is what he did.
>You got me there. But consider the doctrine of "separate but equal" at question in Plessy and in Brown. That principle was found to be unconstitutional by Brown v. Board and should have been held the same by Plessy. The judges in Plessy affirmed an inherently unconstitutional law then, since equality would mean a lack of distinguishing qualities to separate people on.
Same with Miller.
>What is inherently unconstitutional about gun laws though?
What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult for you?
>These gun laws exist in the gaps of the 2A,
There are no gaps, What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult for you?
>>
>>760032
>Git gud. Work for your shot.
And you wonder why NYPD accuracy is 18%
>If it makes them less trigger happy...
https://nation.time.com/2013/09/16/ready-fire-aim-the-science-behind-police-shooting-bystanders/
How's that working out for you?
>>
>>759728
>loose gun laws benefit crooks too?
they do not because giving victims force parity makes life more dangerous for a crook. Not to mention that They are more afraid of private citizens with guns than cops because the private citizen isn't going to hesitate shooting a crook
>>
>>759728
>Defang the fucking tiger for Gods sake.
There are over 400,000,000 guns in private hands. American bought more small arms than all the world's militaries combined over the last decade. In anti gun NY only 5% of people complied with registration requirements. In anti gun NJ ZERO people turned in a magazine above 10 rounds or a bump stock to the police after they were declared illegal.
Come and take them, because no one is going to surrender them to you.
>>
>>760025
people sell drop in trigger packs. I can modify the trigger on my lever gun by cutting a spring. Fatal gun accidents are at an all time low so mandating heavier triggers is a dumb fucking idea that won't do anything but make it so people can't shoot handguns as well.
>>
>>760048
No one has been killed with a legally owned assault rifle in the history of the USA
>>
>>759777
https://www.statista.com/statistics/476456/mass-shootings-in-the-us-by-shooter-s-race/

>Between 1982 and February 2020, 64 out of the 116 mass shootings in the United States were carried out by white shooters. By comparison, the perpetrator was African American in 20 mass shootings, and Latino in 10. When calculated as percentages, this amounts to 55 percent, 18 percent and eight percent respectively.

Ouch!
>>
>>760008
>No, it isn't. Read the 14th Amendment you literal retard
Who's denying people their "basic human right" though? Gun control isn't denying people the 2A.

>This is why the NYPD can't shoot for shit
You say that like it's a bad thing
>>
>>760079
>13% of the pop
>18% of the mass shooters
>he doesn't realize that shows blacks do disproportionately more shootings
>he also doesn't realize that the mass shooting stat excludes blacks shooting other blacks over crack.
>>
>>760081
>Gun control isn't denying people the 2A.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9a_3wQHcm_Y
>>
>>760081
>>This is why the NYPD can't shoot for shit
>You say that like it's a bad thing
https://www.foxnews.com/us/nypd-9-shooting-bystander-victims-hit-by-police-gunfire
>>
>>760081
>Who's denying people their "basic human right" though?
Democrats
>Gun control isn't denying people the 2A.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard for you to understand?
>You say that like it's a bad thing
NYPD cops shoot bystanders by accident all the fucking time because they can't aim for shit.
>>
>>760089
Owning guns is not a human right you absolute mong. Look up list of human rights. Nope. No guns there.
>>
>>760119
Out of curiosity where are you getting this list of human rights from? The UN?

Because last time I checked they had no authority in America.
>>
>>760061
>How is "shall not be infringed" still a difficult concept for you, Chang
How is Article 1 of the Constitution still a difficult concept for you, Cletus. Your right to bear arms is not infringed by Congress' right to determine what arms you may bear. The Big C did not say "any and all arms", now did it?
>You can buy or build a S2A missile. It just requires a $200 tax. It isn't illegal
I'm not arguing the illegality of it. I'm arguing the practicability of it. No one will sell you one for reasons of their own, even if you are licensed to bear it. No less the resources to build one.
>per the supremacy clause, congress cannot make laws that violate the constitution.
K. Now prove they violate the Constitution. I've explained this to you already.
>Also heller said that other gun laws were not in the scope of the case.
Again, I'm not talking about the scope of Heller, so much as I am quoting a secondary passage of the Heller decision explicitly affirming the constitutionality of Gun Control laws. Forget the ruling of Heller, but focus on that paragraph.
Again, as if the continued existence of gun control laws is not proof enough.
>It states that arms made after the 1700s are protected by the 2nd amendment and made it so states could not ban them.
Who's talking about a ban? Gun control =/= gun bans.
>And I've shown you the quote that shows up right before it talking about the scope of the case, chang.
And I've posted a reply to it, Cletus >>760061
>BECAUSE OVERTURNING PREVIOUS DECISIONS WERE NOT PART OF THE SCOPE OF THE CASE AS THE DECISION SAYS.
NOR COULD THEY OVERTURN IT EVEN IF THEY DID HAVE SCOPE, DESPITE AFFIRMING SUCH DECISIONS THEMSELVES REGARDLESS
>What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard for you to understand?
What part of "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" is hard for you to understand?
>>
>>760119
Human rights are a philosophical question and unless if you're God you don't have the answer to it
Back here in reality a person's rights are afforded to them by the institutions which govern them
And those institutions which govern (philosophically speaking) should be decided by those which they are meant to govern. Aka self determination
And when foreign interests such as China or Russia decide an election, or when it is decided by special interests outside of the legal voting population then it is no longer self-determination
And that my friend, is why guns are in the constitution. To have a forcible means of preventing unjust rule.
>>
>>760137
>Gun control =/= gun bans.
Not that same anon. How does gun control work again? By banning certain guns. So yeah actually gun control == gun ban.
>>
>>760063
>No, half of all murders are done by blacks. The murder rate of white people in the USA is about the same as belgium.
I'll need a source for these.

>There is no correlation between gun ownership rate and murder rate
How about gun ownership rate and *gun* murder rate? So you're trying to include non-firearm based homicides to the mix?

In any case, who's talking about murder rates? I'm talking about homicide rates. Theres, "a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates."
https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409

The problem with your article is that it relies on the concept of "murder", and not "homicide". Murder is a legal definition, and it is determined by a court. Homicide is a coroner's decision. Your article says that the media is "sneaking in" gun suicides into the idea of "gun murders" - but who is talking about murders alone to begin with? Quite sneaky of the author himself.

Gun deaths, especially suicide are still a big problem to deal with - violence never had to be interpersonal. This guy is ignoring this for his own article. What are you doing yourself?

>If you go by the GVA definition that says there are hundreds of mass shootings each year, blacks do the lion's share of them.
You got me there, blacks do the most mass shootings - the kicker is for what purpose. Fighting over gangland turf is different from spraying high schoolers with lead. Mass shootings are an umbrella term now, the main differences between incidents lie in the motives and context. What are the motives behind those shootings by blacks?

>You are the one trying to say people don't have a right to self defense
Not at all. I'm trying to say people dont have the right to bear all arms, all the time, for any and all purposes. The courts agree.

There are no absolutes in this world, not even for rights. Not even for freedom. The sooner you realize this the better.
>>
>>757819
>muh guns
>>
White collar crime is more detrimental to this country than blue collar or black on black ghetto murders and you will never change my mind on this.

Vast majority of child/women traffickers and pedophiles, insider trading, cyber crimes, insurance fraud, mortgage default fraud, criminal bankers, etc etc in the country are done by white males. But by all means lets obsess over how a nigger killed another nigger at the corner store because he got mean mugged while buying a Fanta
>>
>>760067
>Because they are referencing miller.
Ok. Is Miller wrong? Are they wrong to mention Miller? I would mention Miller myself but it doesn't contain the passage I wanted to quote AFAIK, affirming the existence of gun control laws.

>Semi auto rifles have been in common use among the american people since 1905. Semi auto handguns since like the 1880s.
Spears have been in use since prehistory. Anyways, I get what you're saying, but defining common use weapons will go beyond things like function or now, provenance.

>>760073
Why are they resorting to guns so quick to begin with? Whatever happened to the use of force continuum? Can't shoot bystanders if you don't rely on your rooty tooty point-and-shooty so gotdam much.

Part of the reason why people advocate for defunding the police (gonna sidetrack a bit), is because the state of American police today is heavily reliant on lethal force to resolve conflicts. To a man with a hammer-fired sidearm, everything looks like a nail. How about your police learn other ways to solve problems instead of shootinf wild at the drop of a hat?
>>
>>760074
Or maybe they just get a gun themselves, then get the jump on you? Samuel Colt did make men equal, doesn't mean there's an equal outcome when it comes to a confrontation. Considering your high crime rates, I know who's coming out on top more.

>>760075
I'll leave it to the ATF. I don't get paid to sort through your shit. I don't blame you and your fellow countrymen for tearing each other apart like starving tigers, I just pity you.

>>760076
So just make those circumventions impossible to do? People can just mandate changes to gun designs that render it impossible to replace the trigger group, EZ. The hard part is enforcing it. You'll always get those shoestring machine gun hacks and such, but that doesn't mean making it easy for them.
>>
>>760085
>Broadly speaking, the racial distribution of mass shootings mirrors the racial distribution of the U.S. population as a whole. While a superficial comparison of the statistics seems to suggest African American shooters are over-represented and Latino shooters underrepresented, the fact that the shooter’s race is unclear in around five percent of cases, along with the different time frames over which these statistics are calculated means no such conclusions should be drawn.

Ouch!

>>760086
Respect your Vietnam Vets
https://youtu.be/09s1nQ7DU_g

>>760088
Why are they shooting so much at all? Shooting first, and asking questions later doesn't work, who'da thunk it
>>
>>760089
>Democrats
I never knew Scalia was a Demonrat?

>What part of "shall not be infringed" is hard for you to understand?
>What part of "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" is hard for you to understand?

What part of "Your right to bear arms is not infringed by Congress' right to determine what arms you may bear. The Big C did not say "any and all arms"" is hard for you to understand?

Every day until you like it

>NYPD cops shoot bystanders by accident all the fucking time because they can't aim for shit.
Y shoot tho???

>>760123
And vice versa to the world. Your "rights" are inhuman, thats why its not on the UN Charter of Human Rights
>>
>>759743
The things about these kinda of regulations is that they're not designed to be ironclad. The point is to weed out the idiots. If you have the know-how to perform those kinda of modifications, you're probably familiar enough with firearms that you're not going to accidentally kill someone. It's not perfect, but it helps keep idiots (and those around them) safe, while not disenfranchising the rest of us.
>>
>>760071
>What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult for you?
What part of "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" is hard for you to understand?

What part of "Your right to bear arms is not infringed by Congress' right to determine what arms you may bear. The Big C did not say "any and all arms"" is hard for you to understand?

>Congress does not have the right to tell me jack shit.
Try that argument in court and see, Mr Sovereign Citizen
>I've refuted you multiple times, Chang.
K den. Now refute the Supreme Court justices who I quoted. And the gun laws they affirm and that still exist, Cletus.
>Our nation is a land where the government serves at the pleasure of the people, where into our charter we enshrined basic human rights
And said pleasures of said people brought these gun control laws about...?
>Who he was is what he did.
Exactly, so focus on what he did. Good for him for kicking ass to the highest court in the land, but we're not talking about him over what he has done, as I said. Kudos to him regardless.
>Same with Miller.
What is unconstitutional about that too?
>There are no gaps
Here's one off the top of my head. What "arms" did the 2A explicitly permit bearing? And who said it has to be guns? You have the right to bear sticks, stones, and hurtful names. Stick to em. Congress will flesh out the details themselves.
>>
>>760141
Well consensus is one way to approach a universal definition. What is the consensus on the 2A to the world at large? Human rights should not be decided by a small portion of humanity, namely 330 million of them, but by all.

>And that my friend, is why guns are in the constitution. To have a forcible means of preventing unjust rule.
Whatever happened to ballots over bullets as a means to prevent forcible rule? And if not actual ballots then the collective will of the people?
>>
>>760176
>To a man with a hammer-fired sidearm, everything looks like a nail.
Ugh, will you stop? The funny thing is I knew this stupid catchphrase would've been used in this thread, but I honestly thought it would have been towards the congresswoman at the start of this thread and not police.

>How about your police learn other ways to solve problems instead of shootinf wild at the drop of a hat?
Because a lot of times police DON'T use lethal force when they should and they end up dead or someone innocent gets killed. For example in Chicago a female cop got stabbed by a man who had two tasers in him and was still able to get up and grab her before other officers shot him. In Los Angeles police hesitated to shoot a man with a knife and he was able to grab a hostage and stab her. In Arizona a cop was killed while struggling with a suspect who grabbed the officer's gun and shot him with it. See it works both ways. Just as you have examples of officers using excessive force, there are examples of officers not using enough force and then people get killed. The problem is these cops have to listen to people like you who know nothing about guns, firearms, police, laws, etc. and with your 20/20 hindsight you judge them on their mistakes made during high stress, and now as a result police are more concerned with being sued than they are about saving lives. This is why about 200 officers in Minneapolis quit or applied for disability - and why their crime rate just spiked with 50% more murders in 2020.

>Why are they resorting to guns so quick to begin with?
>On Saturday night in New York City’s Times Square, police opened fire on a man who was walking erratically into oncoming traffic and, when approached by law enforcement, reached into his pocket as if he were grabbing a weapon. The officers fired three shots.
What would you have done differently?

>Whatever happened to the use of force continuum?
Acting like your pulling a gun on police doesn't justify lethal force?
>>
>>760176
>Can't shoot bystanders if you don't rely on your rooty tooty point-and-shooty so gotdam much.
Yeah I'm sure the 12 pound triggers that NYPD has to use aren't helping accuracy much, not to mention the lousy training they get in the first place. But hey, let's just defund them and make sure they don't get any training. That'll work.
>>
>>760158
>In any case, who's talking about murder rates? I'm talking about homicide rates. Theres, "a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates."
>https://ajph.aphapublications.org/doi/full/10.2105/AJPH.2013.301409
Kek, that data says that the number of blacks increased the murder rate by over 5 times the rate gun ownership increased the murder rate
>>
>>760192
>Why are they shooting so much at all? Shooting first, and asking questions later doesn't work, who'da thunk it
>The veteran patrolmen who opened fire on the suit-wearing gunman, Jeffrey Johnson, had only an instant to react when he whirled and pointed a .45-caliber pistol as they approached him from behind on a busy sidewalk.
Again, retard, what would you have done in this situation? I'm pointing a .45 at you. You have half a second to do something before I kill you. What's your move?
>>
Just cc and dont tell anyone you fucking retard
>>
>>760119
It absolutely is you complete retard.
>>760208
No one living outside the USA is a human
>>
>>760158
>incidence rate ratio=1.009;
Or in other words 1 person out of every 100 should not have a gun because they do stupid shit.
Yeah ok.
So you want to fuck every person in the ass because 1 out of 100 likes being sodomized?
>>
>>760158
>I'll need a source for these.
FBI crime stats.
>How about gun ownership rate and *gun* murder rate? So you're trying to include non-firearm based homicides to the mix?
>In any case, who's talking about murder rates? I'm talking about homicide rates. Theres, "a robust correlation between higher levels of gun ownership and higher firearm homicide rates."
Why are gun murders considered worse than other murders? does a gun kill your soul? Does killing someone with a knife make them less dead?
Also your study shows the effect of black people is 5 times stronger than the effect of guns
>The problem with your article is that it relies on the concept of "murder", and not "homicide".
Do you think the number for murder and homicide is really that far apart?
>Gun deaths, especially suicide are still a big problem to deal with - violence never had to be interpersonal. This guy is ignoring this for his own article. What are you doing yourself?
So we are going to deny everyone their rights because people do suicides? Are we going to ban bridges and ropes too?
>You got me there, blacks do the most mass shootings - the kicker is for what purpose. Fighting over gangland turf is different from spraying high schoolers with lead. Mass shootings are an umbrella term now, the main differences between incidents lie in the motives and context. What are the motives behind those shootings by blacks?
Crack
>Not at all. I'm trying to say people dont have the right to bear all arms, all the time, for any and all purposes.
You are saying people don't have a right to self defense.
>There are no absolutes in this world, not even for rights. Not even for freedom. The sooner you realize this the better.
fuck off with your human rights denial chang.
>>
>>760208
>Whatever happened to ballots over bullets as a means to prevent forcible rule?
Well, in the US what happened is a mixture of electronic unauditable voting machines, coupled with lack of transparency, pallettes of mysterious mailin votes arriving after the deadline, unenforceable voting regulations, unrestricted voting registration implemented in a manner where the only agency which may audit registration is the states own secretary, the same entity performing the registration, as well as an overall nation wide doubt as to the security and veracity of our current election process

But fix all that stuff and you're definitely right. If the people have the right to decide their own collective limitations using a process that is known to be (or at least trusted as) secure and Infallible, then fuck yeah. No issue with that
>>
>>760185
>Or maybe they just get a gun themselves, then get the jump on you? Samuel Colt did make men equal, doesn't mean there's an equal outcome when it comes to a confrontation.
Criminals would get the jump on people even if guns were banned
>Considering your high crime rates, I know who's coming out on top more.
As this anon shows >>760158 our crime rate is caused by black people
>I'll leave it to the ATF. I don't get paid to sort through your shit. I don't blame you and your fellow countrymen for tearing each other apart like starving tigers, I just pity you.
I don't think about you at all
>So just make those circumventions impossible to do? People can just mandate changes to gun designs that render it impossible to replace the trigger group, EZ. The hard part is enforcing it. You'll always get those shoestring machine gun hacks and such, but that doesn't mean making it easy for them.
Says the retard who has never seen a gun in his life
>>
>>760137
>How is Article 1 of the Constitution still a difficult
I've already explained the supremacy clause and what "shall not be infringed" means. Congress cannot pass laws that violate the constitution.
>I'm not arguing the illegality of it. I'm arguing the practicability of it.
People own private rockets dude. That is what the guy who made Doom does for fun.
>K. Now prove they violate the Constitution. I've explained this to you already.
What do you think "shall not be infringed" means you literal retard?
>Again, I'm not talking about the scope of Heller, so much as I am quoting a secondary passage of the Heller decision explicitly affirming the constitutionality of Gun Control laws. Forget the ruling of Heller, but focus on that paragraph.
"Ignore all the context and take a quote out of context to help my argument"
>Who's talking about a ban? Gun control =/= gun bans.
You are talking about banning classes of guns retard.
>And I've posted a reply to it,
You linked to one of my posts, not yours chang.
>NOR COULD THEY OVERTURN IT EVEN IF THEY DID HAVE SCOPE, DESPITE AFFIRMING SUCH DECISIONS THEMSELVES REGARDLESS
Said the faggot to Thurgood Marshall
>What part of "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" is hard for you to understand?
It wasn't within the scope of the case you retard
>>
>>760176
>Ok. Is Miller wrong?
yes
> Are they wrong to mention Miller?
Yes, but they did it because they were kinda bound by that decision and Kennedy and Roberts were being cucks.
>I would mention Miller myself but it doesn't contain the passage I wanted to quote AFAIK, affirming the existence of gun control laws.
Because you are chinese and just following a script and don't know what the miller decision was.
>Spears have been in use since prehistory.
And spears are protected by the second amendment
>Anyways, I get what you're saying, but defining common use weapons will go beyond things like function or now, provenance.
so you want to ban things based on looks?
>>760200
>I never knew Scalia was a Demonrat?
Overturning Miller wasn't in the scope of the case and he was bound by Roberts and Kennedy being cucks. If he got the case now with 5 good justices on the court instead of 3 and 2 cucks he would have gone further
>What part of "Your right to bear arms is not infringed by Congress' right to determine what arms you may bear. The Big C did not say "any and all arms"" is hard for you to understand?
congress doesn't have rights. It isn't a person. It isn't made of people
>Every day until you like it
repeating a lie doesn't make it the truth
>Y shoot tho???
because blacks do crimes and try to kill people
>>
>>760206
>What part of "Like most rights,
Overturning Miller wasn't in the scope of the case and he was bound by Roberts and Kennedy being cucks. If he got the case now with 5 good justices on the court instead of 3 and 2 cucks he would have gone further
>What part of "Your right to be
congress doesn't have rights. It isn't a person. It isn't made of people. repeating a lie doesn't make it the truth
>Try that argument in court and see, Mr Sovereign Citizen
The government is not the arbiter of rights.
>K den. Now refute the Supreme Court justices who I quoted. And the gun laws they affirm and that still exist, Cletus.
I've already explained this to you multiple times chang. Overturning miller and banning all gun laws was not in the scope of the case.
>And said pleasures of said people brought these gun control laws about...?
The majority does not have the right to deny the minority their basic human rights.
>Exactly, so focus on what he did. Good for him for kicking ass to the highest court in the land, but we're not talking about him over what he has done, as I said. Kudos to him regardless.
You are just mad that not knowing who he was proves you are either not American or were literally in the retard classes in school.
>What is unconstitutional about that too?
It violates the second amendment. Miller actually violates itself because it says only guns that can be used for militia activity are protected by the second amendment and the NFA only regulates weapons that would be used by a militia.
>Here's one off the top of my head. What "arms" did the 2A explicitly permit bearing?
All.
>And who said it has to be guns? You have the right to bear sticks, stones, and hurtful names.
It doesn't have to be guns. All Arms are protected.
> Congress will flesh out the details themselves.
What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult for you chang?
>>
Lawmakers shouldn't be allowed any form of special protection. Their protection should be assured by the policies they inact to better their constituents. If they fear for their lives, that means they're doing something wrong
>>
>>760935
Yes, but all people should be allowed to conceal carry everywhere
>>
>>760222
>Ugh, will you stop?
Uh oh, triggered

>Because a lot of times police DON'T use lethal force when they should...more murders in 2020
Maybe the cops should have exercised greater caution when in close quarters, or attempted deescalation, or called for backup, etc. A gun isn't your only tool in your duty belt. Those cops could have done much more to *prevent* this in the time leading up to the violent parts, and this sentiment goes beyond using the rest of your equipment (tasers, mace etc).

>What would you have done differently
Not open fire on sight on jaywalkers to begin with? Look at the incident from a holistic perspective, not just when he's reaching in his pocket.

>Acting like your pulling a gun on police doesn't justify lethal force?
Why are guns being pulled out at all? For both sides of the conflict? What can we do to prevent or minimize this from happening?
>>
>>760224
Yes indeed. There's more than one way to skin a cat. Policing should not be the only way to solve problems in society. Given the track record of the NYPD, that's a given. They've had their chance to do better. Its insanity to repeat the same thing and expecting different results from them.

>>760226
In any case, who's talking about murder rates? I'm talking about homicide rates.

>>760228
>All nine people wounded during a dramatic confrontation between police and a gunman outside the Empire State Building were struck by bullets fired by the two officers, police said Saturday, citing ballistics evidence.
Not approach a gunman in a crowded place and shoot more people than the gunman alone could manage? Fucking retard, both you and those pigs.
>>
>>760883
No one living inside the USA is a sane human.

>>760886
>Or in other words 1 person out of every 100 should not have a gun because they do stupid shit.
How the fuck did you reason this? Its saying there's a near 1:1 ration between gun ownership and gun homicide rates.

>Gun ownership was a significant predictor of firearm homicide rates (incidence rate ratio=1.009; 95% confidence interval=1.004, 1.014). This model indicated that for each percentage point increase in gun ownership, the firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%.

>>760887
>FBI crime stats.
Those same stats state that whites kill more whites than blacks. Blacks kill more blacks than whites. You are your own threat. Fear thy neighbor.

>Why are gun murders considered worse than other murders?
What? I'm talking about gun *homicides*. Murder, suicide, its all equally unacceptable to me.
>Do you think the number for murder and homicide is really that far apart?
Do you? I'd like to see yours.
>You are saying people don't have a right to self defense.
Oh no, you can defend yourself anytime. Its just that you are not entitled to certain means of self defense, like certain firearms. The 2A did not state you had the right to bear any and all arms. The right to bear arms is not unlimited, like other rights.

>fuck off with your human rights denial chang.
Sorry Cletus, freedom isn't free.
>>
>>760893
>Well, in the US what happened is a mixture of electronic unauditable voting machines
Despite paper receipts being recounted and verified by electronic voting records?
>coupled with lack of transparency,
Despite such votes and their subsequent recounts taking place with bipartisan observers?
>pallettes of mysterious mailin votes arriving after the deadline,
Despite the fact mail in ballots are counted last, and the deadline being extended by courts due to the pandemic?
>unenforceable voting regulations,
Despite the broad authority of the FEC?
>unrestricted voting registration implemented in a manner where the only agency which may audit registration is the states own secretary
Can you clarify this for me?

>as well as an overall nation wide doubt as to the security and veracity of our current election process
What is the basis for this doubt though? You've had electronic voting for decades and yet I see all this furor over voter fraud now. Those same voting machines were used to elect Trump by Americans and I see no complaints there.

>If the people have the right to decide their own collective limitations using a process that is known to be (or at least trusted as) secure and Infallible, then fuck yeah. No issue with that
I get what you mean, but I just don't get the basis for such widespread doubt. Note there isn't a total reliance on electronic voting in place of a hybrid paper-electronic approach (AFAIK). One, you trust; the other you verify with.
>>
>>760895
>Criminals would get the jump on people even if guns were banned
...so that makes owning guns moot then? Initiative and surprise are effective force multipliers for any crook.
>As this anon shows >>760158 (You) # our crime rate is caused by black people
Adorable. Also that link talks about a link between gun ownership and gun homicides. Where does it mention blacks and crime rates?
>I don't think about you at all
Clearly you don't think of anyone else at all, not just me.
Just awful.
>>
>>760904
>Congress cannot pass laws that violate the constitution
K den. Again, now prove it violates the Constitution.
>People own private rockets dude
...weaponized rockets?
>What do you think "shall not be infringed" means you literal retard?
What do you think "prove it" means you literal retard? If you can't even prove how such laws violate the Constitution to me, good luck proving it to the very courts who affirmed such laws to begin with.
>"Ignore all the context and take a quote out of context to help my argument"
And what further does the context provide to the quote I used? Does that context disqualify my point? Lets hear it
>You are talking about banning classes of guns retard.
Where did I say that? Quote me.
>You linked to one of my posts, not yours chang.
Oops >>759714
Hard to see with these squinty eyes of mine
>Thurgood Marshall
Dont know dont care
>It wasn't within the scope of the case you retard
The scope of the case, hell the case itself, is irrelevant to the statement I used within it. I'm just quoting Heller because it contains the most explicit affirmation of gun laws. IDGAF about the Heller decision itself.
>>
>>760907
>yes
>Yes, but they did it
Y?
>
Because you are chinese and just following a script and don't know what the miller decision was.
I'll tell my scriptwriters to revise the boilerplate for clarity's sake. But doesn't the Miller decision itself affirm gun laws too? Oof.
>And spears are protected by the second amendment
Yes, so stick to em.
>so you want to ban things based on looks?
What? Appearance is even worse of a quality.

>and he was bound by Roberts and Kennedy being cucks
...so... stare decisis?
>If he got the case now with 5 good justices on the court instead of 3 and 2 cucks he would have gone further
...so you're advocating for rigging the courts?
>congress doesn't have rights. It isn't a person. It isn't made of people
Article 1 of the Constitution. Doesnt need to be one. It is (also are you fucking kidding me with that last one).
>repeating a lie doesn't make it the truth
You should know.
>because blacks do crimes and try to kill people
Who's talking about blacks? And why is violence your only answer to things? Do better.
>>
For future reference:

What part of "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" is hard for you to understand?

What part of "Your right to bear arms is not infringed by Congress' right to determine what arms you may bear. The Big C did not say "any and all arms"" is hard for you to understand?
>>
>>760909
>Overturning Miller...repeating a lie doesn't make it the truth
See >>761902
>The government is not the arbiter of rights.
That's right. It's the judiciary.
>Overturning miller and banning all gun laws was not in the scope of the case.
Who's talking about the Heller decision, Cletus? I'm quoting a passage from the decision, I don't care for the decision itself. Overturning gun laws alone is beyond mere scope, so the Heller decision itself can buzz off.
>The majority does not have the right to deny the minority their basic human rights.
The minority does not have the right to rule the majority.
>not knowing who he was
Not caring you mean
>It violates the second amendment.
How tho???
>Miller actually violates itself
How do you reckon this? And where does the NFA limit itself to only militia weapons?
>All.
Where?
>It doesn't have to be guns. All Arms are protected.
And all Arms fall under arms control laws enacted to regulate them, including gun control laws. The right to bear arms does not mean the right to bear all arms all the time for any reason. The 2nd never said as much. Congress shall.
>What part of "shall not be infringed" is difficult for you chang?
See >>761968. Let's see how much times you make me quote that post.
>>
Welp the 06 events writes her an easy reelection ticket.

CP sure came through lol.
>>
>>761968
It's a question of when the right is so limited that it can't serve it's intended function. You can't fight a modern war without semi-automatic rifles - the ban of semi-automatic rifles will not be allowed to happen.
>>
So, retarded chang aside who has no idea what "infringe" means does yesterday's protest not prove the woman in OP correct?
>>
>>761968
A lie doesn't magically become true the more times you write it. The second amendment is very clear in that the government is not allowed to regulate the private ownership of arms in any capacity. To do so would be to infringe. At the time of writing people owned canons and warships. All gun laws violate the second amendment. There is a reason it took 150 years before any federal gun laws were made and that those laws were literally made by a tyrant who put Americans in concentration camps based on their race and was upheld by the same judges who said the president has the authority to put Americans in concentration camps based on their race.
>>
>>761762
>Maybe the cops should have exercised greater caution when in close quarters,
Yeah by taking out their GUN you dumb fuck.
>>
>>762632
>All gun laws violate the second amendment.
It doesn't, actually.

>There is a reason it took 150 years before any federal gun laws were made and that those laws were literally made by a tyrant who put Americans in concentration camps based on their race
Are you the same dipshit who has been posting for days about WWII Japanese internment camps being proof that modern day Democrats want to re-institute slavery? Jesus christ, man, are you still in the middle of the same mental break?
>>
>>762565
Question is the context of those semi-auto rifles' operation. In a war zone sure. But America, or at the very least certain parts of America like schools, courthouses, etc, aren't warzones. The rest of the nuance is up to Congress to decide, since the 2nd did not explicitly nor definitively, do so.
>>
>>762713
>It doesn't, actually.
By founders intent, they do.
>>
>>762632
A lie doesn't magically become true the more times you write it
>>
>>762632
>The second amendment is very clear in that the government is not allowed to regulate the private ownership of arms in any capacity. To do so would be to infringe.
>All gun laws violate the second amendment.

That's up for legal debate. And seeing as how this debate is not going anywhere, I'm resorting to the fact that judges on both sides of the spectrum have explicitly affirmed the constitutionality of gun laws, as I've mentioned before. And the fact that gun laws exist and will continue to exist means that your point is baseless.

Your right to bear arms is not being infringed, its just that the 2A didn't explicitly say when, where, how, etc you may bear those arms, nor did they explicitly say the arms themselves you could bear. You can't infringe on what is otherwise not mentioned. Devil's in the details.
>>
>>762683
Or staying away you dumb fuck.

>>765940
My idea of their intent is different from yours. If they intended the 2A to be absolutely unlimited, they would have written as much. They didn't. Clearly they intended the 2A to be more tempered, and not absolute...
>>
>>765945
>My idea of their intent is different from yours. If they intended the 2A to be absolutely unlimited, they would have written as much. They didn't. Clearly they intended the 2A to be more tempered, and not absolute.
Their phrasing, context, personal political writings, and actions all suggested precise that they did not envision restriction of the 2a, and certainly not of the form we have seen for 100+ years. But, realistically, it doesn't doesn't matter. Every other amendment and secured freedom has been neutered, and will continue to be so, and people will accept it. We'll have a national red flag law soon, and it will be upheld that due process just means that one has a right to trail at some arbitrary time after criminal penalty or expropriation is effected.
>>
>>765956
>will be upheld that due process just means that one has a right to trail at some arbitrary time after criminal penalty or expropriation is effected
That's already been enacted by the right except they don't have a trial. Right wing courts have upheld the ability of police to confiscate your property w/o ever charging you with a crime.
>>
>>765935
>The rest of the nuance is up to Congress to decide, since the 2nd did not explicitly nor definitively, do so.
The second amendment literally says "...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." It is pretty fucking explicit in that the government cannot legally regulate private arms ownership in any capacity without violating the second amendment
>>762713
Why do you deny japanese internment and do you not know what "infringe" means?
>>
>>765956
The founders encouraged using cannons for self-defense.
>>
>>766138
Actually, "Keep and bear arms" can be interpreted as "You can own A gun" not "You can own ANY gun".
>>
>>766141
People literally owned canons and warships at the time of the revolution. Lewis and Clark owned a rifle that could shoot 21 rounds in less than a minute and wrote about it like 69 times in one of their journals so Jefferson would have known about it and thought it was dank
>>
>>766141
You're the sort of motherfucker who thinks that 2A means you can only have a musket.
>>
>>766166
Well I don't know about you anon, but shooting someone just doesn't feel the same unless if I have two flintlock pistols and a tricorn pirate hat
>>
>>761968
"Shall not be infringed" is all-encompassing and without limitations. "Arms" can mean anything that qualifies as a weapon meant to inflict bodily harm.
>>
>>757819
If they still push this after Wednesday they must be completely retarded.
>>
>>765956
>and it will be upheld that due process just means that one has a right to trail at some arbitrary time after criminal penalty or expropriation is effected.
That is already the case, no? You have the right to a speedy trial...eventually
>>
>>757819

This is the same bitch who dropped out of high school, married a pedophile who got arrested for flashing her & others (how they met), and live-tweeted the location of Pelosi during the insurrection. Her only platform when running was 'i'll carry my gun to congress"
>>
>>765956
>Their phrasing, context, personal political writings, and actions all suggested precise that they did not envision restriction of the 2a, and certainly not of the form we have seen for 100+ years.
Nothing can get more precise than an explicit declaration in the 2A. However the 2A didn't say what specific arms you are allowed to bear, only that you may bear arms in general. Auxiliary papers like diary entries, biographies, etc, are irrelevant.

What specific arms you can bear, the places you are allowed are to are, the make and manner you bear arms, etc are determined by Congress, since the Fathers didn't explicitly state so in the 2A. Again, devils in the details. There are rulings that say modern weapons are included as arms, but that still says nothing about legislation enacted to control said arms. As an aside the 2A is not limited to guns, and yet all I see are GUNZ GUNZ GUNZ in this forum, no less America.
>>
>>766138
>"...the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Ok. Like I said, what are arms, what are "bearable arms", what counts as either, how may you bear them, where may you bear them, what is the purposes of bearing them, etc. The 2A didn't explicitly nor definitively establish answers to these questions and beyond. So Congress will.

Like >>766141 said, but not just guns, just arms in general. You can get stuck with a stabby stick and still fulfill the 2nd. You are not entitled to specific arms like guns since the Constitution didn't say as much. Stick to your stick.
>>
>>766188
Ok, so sharpen a wooden stick and you're good to go. Who says guns are specifically promoted by the 2A? That doesn't even bring in the question of what counts as "bearable arms". Is that an ICBM in your pocket or are you just happy to meet me?
>>
>>769224
>Who says guns are specifically promoted by the 2A?
The founding fathers.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46
>Extravagant as the supposition is, let it however be made. Let a regular army, fully equal to the resources of the country, be formed; and let it be entirely at the devotion of the federal government; still it would not be going too far to say, that the State governments, with the people on their side, would be able to repel the danger.
The purpose of the 2A was to arm the people so that they could be equal in power to the federal army. Why? Because they knew that if tyrants took control of the government the armed populace could fight them off.

The opinion of pinko fucks need not apply.
>>
>>769217
Imagine being such a shitty political party with such a toxic platform you lost to her
>>
>>769224
Arms means all arms and infringed means regulation. It isn't "you have a right to one arm" it is "you have a right to each and every arm free of any and all regulation"
>>
>>765943
How is "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." so hard for you to understand?
>>765945
>If they intended the 2A to be absolutely unlimited, they would have written as much.
They did, they wrote that it shall not be infringed
>>
>>759271
all this cope he can't even make an argument.
>>
>>769274
>The founding fathers.
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Federalist_No._46
Funny, this must have fell off the table when the Constitution was penned
>The purpose of the 2A was to arm the people so that they could be equal in power to the federal army. Why? Because they knew that if tyrants took control of the government the armed populace could fight them off.
Choose ballots over bullets. You'd get outgunned and outlawed any day of the week.

>The opinion of pinko fucks need not apply.
Funny how both you and Communists are so fond of overthrowing the "establishment" through armed revolution. You even have the same floral language. Tankies and gun nuts truly were made for each other.
>>
>>769279
>Arms means all arms and infringed means regulation.
Where do you see that?

>It isn't "you have a right to one arm" it is "you have a right to each and every arm free of any and all regulation"
Where do you see this? I remember the 2A was more terse than that.
>>
>>769281
>How is "... the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed." so hard for you to understand?
See >>761968

>They did, they wrote that it shall not be infringed
What shall not be infringed, again? I seem to have forgotten but surely you know? More importantly, what did they leave out of that non-infringatory clause...? Questions, questions.
>>
>>769289
A non-answer for your non-example, sure
>>
>>769423
>Where do you see that?
It's in the second amendment.
>>
Dunno why people continue to argue over this shit. No one's mind is ever changed, this isn't a matter of strict facts or feelings, but of world view. The establishment's desire to disarms the public is primarily class warfare anyway. I would suggest you spend your energy becoming comfortably wealthy by any means necessary, and there will undoubtedly be loopholes for you no matter what gun laws are passed.
>>
>>769502
Get rich enough, and there are loopholes to every law.

Including the one that says you shouldn't make the plebs argue past each other over issues they ultimately agree upon, just to gain more ability to be more irresponsible with your power.

But I suppose that one's still kinda unwritten, beyond the incitement, sedition, and treason rules - or there's just enough money and people behind it, to let it be ignored.
>>
>>769224
>The second amendment doesn't protect guns
>This is a legitimate argument
>Gun-nuts = owned
>>
>>769224
James Madison issued a Letter of Marque to a ship captain who asked if cannons were protected by the Second Amendment.
>>
>>769421
>You'd get outgunned
Well that's why we need the AR-15.
>>
>>765945
>Or staying away you dumb fuck.
Then how the fuck can they get to the suspect retard?
>>
>>769421
> Choose ballots over bullets.
Always remember the four boxes of liberty.
1. The soap box.
2. The ballot box.
3. The jury box.
4. The ammo box.
>>
>>766141
That's like interpreting free speech as you can say one word, not that you can string them together to make a sentence. Fucking idiots on here.
>>
>>769218
Absolutely wrong.
>>
>>769218
>since the Fathers didn't explicitly state so in the 2A.
They explicitly did. That is what "shall not be infringed." Means. But you are the chang who didnt know what brown v board of ed was
>>
>>769421
>You'd get outgunned and outlawed any day of the week.
There are over 100,000,000 gun owners in the USA dude. The people aren't outgunned
>>
>>770099
>There are over 100,000,000 gun owners in the USA dude
These 100,000,000 gun owners are some of the most ideologically split populations in the country. There is no political cause in this country that 100,000,000 gun owners would come together on. "The people" are a hundred times more likely to turn their guns on each other than the government.
>>
>>770104
Completely and totally false. If only gun owners voted trump would have won 49 states. Gun owners are United against the communist subhuman
>>
>>770109
>If only gun owners voted trump would have won 49 states.
Ok, but they didn't. That was my whole point.

>Gun owners are United against the communist subhuman
They clearly aren't considering the guy who Trump spent a year telling everyone was a far-left socialist radical fucking crushed him in the election. Apparently the McCarthy bullshit fizzled and died out just like it did 40 years ago. Face it, my guy. People were pumped with red scare bullshit by you and your demagogues for years leading up to the election and nobody bought it. The only people that did by it are currently being rounded up by the FBI for trying to murder politicians.
>>
>>770111
>Ok, but they didn't. That was my whole point.
The gun owners are united. Nongunowners are not part of the people.
>They clearly aren't considering the guy who Trump spent a year telling everyone was a far-left socialist radical fucking crushed him in the election.
He cheated and only won by the same margin trump beat clinton by.
>Apparently the McCarthy bullshit fizzled and died out just like it did 40 years ago. Face it, my guy. People were pumped with red scare bullshit by you and your demagogues for years leading up to the election and nobody bought it. The only people that did by it are currently being rounded up by the FBI for trying to murder politicians.
The commies who voted biden aren't people.
>>
>>770125
>The gun owners are united.
They clearly aren't. You just said that yourself. You said that if all the gun owners had voted Trump then he would've won. Well, Trump didn't win. He lost. Decisively. So which is it? Are gun owners united

>He cheated and only won by the same margin trump beat clinton by.
This isn't even worth engaging with. You're just factually incorrect and delusional and your opinions aren't based in reality.

>The commies who voted biden aren't people.
Well then you're a minority. Deal with it, faggot.
>>
>>770129
>They clearly aren't. You just said that yourself. You said that if all the gun owners had voted Trump then he would've won. Well, Trump didn't win. He lost. Decisively. So which is it? Are gun owners united
I did not say that you ESL retard. I said if ONLY gun owners voted. As in if nongunowners didn't vote. Gun owners overwhelmingly voted Trump. Seriously, learn to fucking read
>This isn't even worth engaging with. You're just factually incorrect and delusional and your opinions aren't based in reality.
Not counting faithless electors, Trump won 306 EC votes in 2016 and Clinton won 232. In 2020 Biden won 306 and Trump won 232. Seriously do the slightest bit of research
>Well then you're a minority. Deal with it, faggot.
How does that change my original statement that gun owners are united and that there are over 100,000,000 of us?
>>
>>766154
There's a difference between one person owning a fancy air-gun that was high-tech for its day and everyone toting assault rifles. If the Founding Fathers could see a time where everyone had easy access to the firepower of a battalion of contemporary soldiers, they'd draft gun-control legislation too. Also, 'gun-control' and 'gun-bans' are different no matter how many pro-2As try to muddy the water; not being able to own certain guns does NOT mean not being able to own a gun, period. Switzerland has legal gun ownership, yet also has gun control laws.
>>
>>770138
>I did not say that you ESL retard. I said if ONLY gun owners voted.
Your sentence was stupidly constructed. Your hypothetical disproves your point on the merit of basic fucking math. Biden got 81 million votes. Trump got 74 million. Where were the 100,000,000 united gun owners who all vote for Trump because of scary commies? Why did 27 million of them conveniently forgot to vote for your cult leader? Learn to count you fucking dipshit.

>Not counting faithless electors, Trump won 306 EC votes in 2016 and Clinton won 232. In 2020 Biden won 306 and Trump won 232. Seriously do the slightest bit of research
What does this have to do with your tin-foil hat delusional faggotry about the election being stolen?

>How does that change my original statement that gun owners are united and that there are over 100,000,000 of us?
Gun owners are not united. If 100,000,000 gun owners were united in voting Trump they would've easily beat Biden's 84 million votes. They didn't. Also, stop saying "us" as if you're in some special group. I'm a leftist and I own dozens of firearms. Trump got dropped like a fucking hot potato by suburban whites and moderates this election - a majority of whom own guns. Stop distracting from the fact that the majority of the country doesn't support your dipshit delusional QANON death cult by referring to gun owners as "us". Gun owners don't have your back, cultist. If they did you pathetic knuckle draggers wouldn't of had to march to the capital and get your asses handed to you for the second time in two months.
>>
>>770138
So the Electoral College and votes were fair when Trump won, and now they're not when Biden did even though we have the most Conservative government we've had in years? If they can't win even when they're holding all the cards, do they have any right to complain about injustice?
>>
>>770149
>what does this have to do
Simple. The electors were fair when they voted for Trump. Now they're not when they voted for Biden. In the Conservative mind, everything that doesn't favour them is fraud, and everything that does is just.
>>
>>770151
>>770152
Lets also not forget the fact that the Dems who stole the election conveniently forgot to manipulate the votes for the house and senate seats that they lost on the same fucking ballots. What a bunch of delusional cunts these people are.
>>
>>770148
The founding fathers intended for able-bodied men to be able to form a militia that was equipped with equivalent firearms to standing armies. Today that equivalent is an AR or AK style rifle.
>>
>>770171
Here is the thing, the founding fathers said militia as a military regiment not some dudes with guns, and said militia would be held to rules of engagement. Militas would not be stationed among the population, because what if someone staged an attack on said militia? It would put civilians in danger. A military has no place in any sort of gathering of civilians outside of supporting an evacuation. Also when a member of a militia where to fuck up they would be held up to a military tribunal, not a civilian court.

The only way the founding fathers said it was ok to have arms was if you are both apart of chain of command and are held to rules of engagement.
>>
>>770188
You're trying to equate a militia to a standing army. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms," means average citizens because that is who make up the militia.
>>
>>770188
>>770148
Literally fucking false and proven to be false in heller. Stop lying you European faggot. /news/ needs country flags
>>
>>770188
"A well balances breakfast, necessary to the health of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear breakfast foods shall not be infringed."

Who has the right to keep and bear breakfast foods- the people, or the well-balanced breakfast?
Does "well balanced" equate to spinning the plate of food on your finger like a Harlem globetrotter?
>>
>>760062
Can't shoot anyone if you don't have a gun.
Checkmate religious savages
>>
>>770389
the right to bacon shall not be infringed.
>>
>>770156
It just gets odder considering it'd make more sense to just steal the votes on the house and senate for dems. Then leave Trump as the figurehead who gets elected. This way Trump continues to piss off everyone and raise dem funds, Dems can pass any law they want unopposed with majority + veto override power, and nobody suspects a damn thing because the media projected a dem sweep and joe blow doesn't give a shit about anyone outside Trump.

But its easier to cope with the fraud for Biden since the crazies have 0 idea how the government or elections work anyways.
>>
>>759239
>implying you need special training to safely handle a firearm

You really don't. It's as simple as following four basic rules and shooting relatively frequently to keep your skills up. The entire reason firearms replaced earlier forms of weapons is because firearms require little training to actually use effectively. The idea that police and military are better trained to use firearms than your typical civilian really isn't true, as most of that training is designed to beat those four basic rules into the heads of America's lowest common denominators to keep them from fucking up because the stakes are higher.

It's less "guns are difficult to handle safely" and more "your typical cop/soldier has a room temperature IQ, so let's make super duper sure they know what not to do". I have a concealed carry permit and have been carrying a handgun basically wherever I go for nearly four years now. Never had an accidental/negligent discharge, never threatened anybody with it, never had it drop out of my holster onto a hard floor and go off or anything retarded like that. Also taught myself how to shoot, and now that everybody around me wants to get a gun I've been teaching other people to shoot as well.
>>
>>770401
Same, I've never done a ND. Worst I've done ever is forget to reengauge the safety on my AR between shots at the range, during live fire when no one was down range, and it never went off because it was pointed down range i didnt fuck with the trigger. I always made sure when doing things like changing targets to put the gun on safe, drop the mag, run the action 4+ times, lock the bolt back, visually and with a finger inspect the chamber to make sure it was unloaded, and put a chamber flag in
>>
>>770385
>muh heller
You are aware that previous Supreme Court rulings have and will be overturned as the composition of the court and circumstances change, correct? Currently, the majority activist knuckledraggers won't, but certainly in the future, a more sensible, progressive Supreme Court will put the emphasis on "well regulated" instead of "infringed" and BTFO of Heller. It can't come soon enough, as America will be a much safer place on that day.
>>
>>770413
>>muh heller
>You are aware that previous Supreme Court rulings have and will be overturned as the composition of the court and circumstances change, correct?
Its 6-3 pro heller right now and the oldest justice is a democrat and the 3 youngest are Republicans >Currently, the majority activist knuckledraggers won't, but certainly in the future, a more sensible, progressive
Progressives are the activist judges, you literal retard.
>Supreme Court will put the emphasis on "well regulated" instead of "infringed" and BTFO of Heller. It can't come soon enough, as America will be a much safer place on that day.
So in 2420? Good luck overturning both Heller and mcdonald and soon to be another case giving the 2a strict scrutiny. And be aware, states will ignore anti 2a rulings and the scotus has no enforcement power.
So buy gun and hang yourself
>>
>>759280
>trying to get a definitive answer from a braindead virtue signaling centrist
>>
>>770419
>Progressives are the activist judges, you literal retard.
So says the right, lol! The term "activist judges" is like the right's classification of countries "we don't like" as being "State sponsors of terrorism." Iow, utter BS.

>So in 2420? Good luck overturning both Heller and mcdonald.
The fact is, the recently installed knuckledragging activist court is a momentary anomaly, a blip on the radar partially engineered by slimeball Mitch violating the Constitutional mandate of "Advice and Consent" by refusing to consider Garland 1 year before the election. Why did he do that? He's astute enough to know the mouthbreathing conservative policies cannot last, the demographics and Zeitgeist just aren't there, so he's ensuring they might be able to continue their scorching, pillaging and plundering of the US if the court is filled with braindead zombies for 20 more years or so. 2420? Your entire world view is a fever dream, so I guess that fits.

And be aware, states will ignore anti 2a rulings and the scotus has no enforcement power.
>>
>>770401
>>770404
Easier just to ban guns, can't ND if you don't have a gun.
>>
So who wants to take bets that Beobert was one of the three Republican congressmen who gave recon tours to the coup terrorists?
>>
>>770543
cont
>And be aware, states will ignore anti 2a rulings and the scotus has no enforcement power
How did that work out for the South when Jim Crow was BTFO and Federal troops were sent to enforce it? Yeah, Billy Bob ended up *gasp* sitting next to Sharissa, lol!
>>
>>770543
>So says the right, lol! The term "activist judges" is like the right's classification of countries "we don't like" as being "State sponsors of terrorism." Iow, utter BS.
Rbg literally said she ruled against heller because she thought the 2nd amendment was outdated and not because of the letter of the law. That is activism and legislating from the bench.
>The fact is, the recently installed knuckledragging activist court
There are only 3 knuckle dragging activists in the court and 2 were appointed by obongo and the 3rd by Clinton
> is a momentary anomaly, a blip on the radar partially engineered by slimeball Mitch
Are you that mad a guy from kentucky is smarter than you?
> violating the Constitutional mandate of "Advice and Consent" by refusing to consider Garland 1 year before the election.
How is that violating the mandate? He advised obongo not to nominate a partisan shill and refused to consent. Obongo should have pulled garland back and nominated someone else
> Why did he do that?
Because garland was ferociously anti gun
> He's astute enough to know the mouthbreathing conservative policies cannot last, the demographics and Zeitgeist just aren't there, so he's ensuring they might be able to continue their scorching, pillaging and plundering of the US if the court is filled with braindead zombies for 20 more years or so. 2420? Your entire world view is a fever dream, so I guess that fits.
Which is why the majority of states have a gop state government? Why do dems always continue the line of "we will win the future" when the future isn't written?
>>
>>770546
How are you going to confiscate 400,000,000 unregistered guns?
>>770550
>How did that work out for the South when Jim Crow was BTFO and Federal troops were sent to enforce it? Yeah, Billy Bob ended up *gasp* sitting next to Sharissa, lol!
Cool, come take it, faggot
>>
>>770393
>Fully-semi-crispy bacon

>>770413
Surely you're aware that the Heller decision wasn't a free for all for gun rights?
>>770550
>Sending troops to a few schools to enforce desegregation is the same thing as going house to house to enforce a registration/confiscation.
>>
>>770568
>Cool, come take it, faggot
The vast majority of assault rifle owners will gladly sell it to the government for their 30 pieces of silver since most never fire them because they're scared to attempt to break them down and clean them. They own them to virtue signal their hardcore gun nut butt buddies. Have you forgotten 40%+ of the US doesn't even have $400 for emergencies?

>same thing as going house to house to enforce a registration/confiscation.
There won't be many houses at all, see above. And the handful of you diehards will expose yourself within hours by running to various sites on the net wailing and gnashing your teeth to your fanatical butt buddies. But yeah, maybe you'll use a a proxy or a "secure, encrypted" site to maintain your "cover," Lmao!
>>
>>770611
>The vast majority of assault rifle owners
Define assault rifle
>The vast majority of assault rifle owners will gladly sell it to the government for their 30 pieces of silver
Citation needed
> since most never fire them
Citation needed
> because they're scared to attempt to break them down and clean them.
Citation needed
>They own them to virtue signal their hardcore gun nut butt buddies.
Citation. Needed
> Have you forgotten 40%+ of the US doesn't even have $400 for emergencies?
No one cares about the poors.
>There won't be many houses at all, see above. And the handful of you diehards will expose yourself within hours by running to various sites on the net wailing and gnashing your teeth to your fanatical butt buddies. But yeah, maybe you'll use a a proxy or a "secure, encrypted" site to maintain your "cover," Lmao!
Citation needed
>>
>>770568
>How are you going to confiscate 400,000,000 unregistered guns?
If you gun nuts weren't brain washed by the gun manufacturers (NRA) and their elected Republican stooges, you would realise it's only a small number of the fringe left, about as many people who are vegan, that are advocating confiscating all guns. The vast majority of those 400,000,000 guns are hunting firearms and home defense handguns. Reasonable and responsible gun control seeks to emphasize safety requirements and training; restrict ownership to sane, non-felons; registration so when some stooge gets radicalized by an Islamic or right wing terrorist organisation, commits a felon, or otherwise goes batshit, all of their guns can be confiscated; and last but not least, buy back assault rifles (which comprise only a fraction of the guns under consideration), and yes, forcible confiscation of said assault rifles if not voluntarily surrendered which sadly, will only result in Jimmy John being splattered all over the wall.

Learn to compromise, your time is running out and more and more people are getting on board with those kinds of controls as evidenced by the gun control advocates winning in VA, the fucking HQ of the NRA, lmao!
>>
>>770611
>The vast majority of assault rifle owners will gladly sell it to the government for their 30 pieces of silver since most never fire them because they're scared to attempt to break them down and clean them.

This is hilariously out of touch
>>
>>770637
>If you gun nuts weren't brain washed by the gun manufacturers (NRA)
NSsf is the manufacturers.
>and their elected Republican stooges, you would realise it's only a small number of the fringe left, about as many people who are vegan, that are advocating confiscating all guns.
The confiscation of any gun intolerable. And the guy i was replying to was saying to confiscate all guns so now you are moving the goal posts.
>The vast majority of those 400,000,000 guns are hunting firearms and home defense handguns.
Gunna need a citation on this
>Reasonable and responsible gun control
Define this
> seeks to emphasize safety requirements and training;
So banning poors and blacks from owning guns when the fatal gun accident rate is at an all time low?
> restrict ownership to sane,
Define this
>non-felons;
Already is
> registration so when some stooge gets radicalized by an Islamic or right wing terrorist organisation, commits a felon, or otherwise goes batshit, all of their guns can be confiscated;
So you admit the only purpose of a registry is confiscation ?
>and last but not least, buy back
How does the government buy back something they never sold me?
> assault rifles
Define this
>(which comprise only a fraction of the guns under consideration),
Are you referring specifically to full autos or to semi autos?
>and yes, forcible confiscation of said assault rifles if not voluntarily surrendered which sadly, will only result in Jimmy John being splattered all over the wall.
Come and take it, bitch boy.
>Learn to compromise,
We did. We gave up new full autos for registries being banned. What are you willing to give up?
>your time is running out and more and more people are getting on board with those kinds of controls as evidenced by the gun control advocates winning in VA, the fucking HQ of the NRA, lmao!
Come and take it, bitch boy.
>>
>>770664
>Come and take it, bitch boy.
Y’all say this but when the cops identify you as planning more terrorism and show up your guns keep getting tuk.
>>
>>770378
You can keep the guns yourself, but you don't get to use them unless you are held accountable by the military.

>>770385
>citation needed

>>770389
Once again, you can keep the guns. It is the literal definition of a militia is a military unit made up of citizens using there own guns.

See: military unit

You have no rights to just swing you gun around because you feel like it, the founding fathers idea of when it was appropriate to bare arms was much more strict than the 21 century interpretation that everyone thinks is true.
>>
>>770611
>$400 for emergencies
Good point, Anon. The government should give every able bodied man and woman below the poverty line $2000 so that they can properly exercise their right to bear arms.
>>
>>770664
>The vast majority of those 400,000,000 guns are hunting firearms and home defense handguns.
>Gunna need a citation on this

>Estimates vary as to how many of the rifles are owned in the United States. The National Shooting Sports Foundation has estimated that approximately 5 million to 10 million AR-15 style rifles exist in the U.S. within the broader total of the 300 million firearms owned by Americans.[66]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/AR-15_style_rifle#Production_and_sales

Sorry, on the high end estimate you assault rifle gun nuts end up at 3%, Sally Sue. Now you know what it really feels like to be a minority!
>inb4 muh Ak-47 knockoffs 'n such
Nope. At most you're down in the tens of thousands if that, lol!
>>
>>770833
Not that same anon. You do realize that a lot of gun owners DON'T report/register what they have? The NY SAFE act went into effect and only had a 4% compliance rate - mostly from law enforcement.
>>
Are we still arguing about that chick in congress who I wouldn’t trust to have near my kid with a loaded BB gun? Tempest in a teacup but that what some nuts make out of every single firearms issue.
>>
>>770841
>Tempest in a teacup but that what some nuts make out of every single firearms issue.
Stop trying to take away our guns and we'll stop bitching.
>>
>>769430
And did the 2nd say "all arms"? Did it say "for all purposes"?
And did it say "for any place"?
You have a right to bear arms, it just didn't say what kinds of arms, for what particular reason, or for what particular context you would bear arms in. The 2nd is not absolute; it wasn't even penned as much, else it would have clarified further these specifics.

>>769573
>strawman
I said promoted, not protected. Guns aren't the only arms at stake, nor was it specifically mentioned in the 2nd. They count as arms, sure, but the specifics of gun possession will have to be clarified by both Congress and Courts.

>>769880
Link? I see several letters but don't know which.
>>
>>769889
Against a GAU-8 Avenger I doubt it

>>769892
Why are they trying to get to the suspect, who is likely armed and dangerous, in a crowded public space, retard? Like those cops who shot up a UPS truck in the middle of traffic and killed civvies. Time and a place buddy

>>769896
Good point, but ballots go farther and hit harder than bullets any day. War is dead.
>>
>>770009
No u

>>770044
"Shall not be infringed" doesn't answer questions on the specifics of arms ownership. So Congress wrote laws that did.

>>770008
Or rather, you can speak all you want, unless that speech limits others. Hence the exceptions to the 1A. The 2nd, like any and all amendments, are not absolute and have exceptions to the rule.
>>
>>770099
>There are over 100,000,000 gun owners in the USA dude.
And how much is owned by the military? But forget that, owning guns is one thing, using them well to wage war is another. Thems the odds.

>>770156
Didn't they win both the House and Senate?

>>770385
Heller proved that handguns count as arms, and that rifles and shotguns could not be bound by trigger locks, among other things. That says nothing for owning arms that aren't handguns. Heller even says itself that "arms ownership is not unlimited". RTFD
>>
>>770973
>Didn't they win both the House and Senate?
They already had the house, but lost several seats, so their position is weakened - they barely took the Senate, and had to run it twice. Trump had convinced enough of his voters that voting is meaningless, that it made it much worse for them the second time, just as his advisors had warned him it would.
>>
>>759239
yeah this basically, she has an extensive rapsheet and her own biz got shutdown before she got elected. She's a fucking retard and though it's her right to own a firearm I would not trust her with one.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.