Banning AR-15s

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.

That pesky constitution protected my reproductive rights until it didn't. It changes. Oh well

Lot harder to change 2nd amendment than one not explicitly mentioned

There is a lot that can be done without changing the 2nd Amendment. The country has for example already decided that felons cannot own guns. Should do the same for anyone who has a documented record of diagnosed mental illness, workplace violence, domestic violence, anger management issues, or any crime whatsoever, that involved a gun in any way whatsoever. Additionally we should consider treating guns for example the way we do cars, requiring mandatory titleing and tagging, requiring any transfer of ownership to be documented, requiring a searchable ownership and records history, requiring regular inspections, requiring written and practical exam, minimum mandatory health requirements and licensing, subject to periodic renewal, and that DOES NOT constitute "infringement."

All of this is an infringement, BY ITS VERY DEFINITION. I understand the ground game; change definitions of words to be cute, but no.

Maybe we should just require a really high tax on guns as well as increase the personal liability insurance requirements. If you can't limit the right to own, perhaps you can make it prohibitively expensive.

So predictable. Like I said, you believe the ends justify the means.

Maybe a $50,000 tax on each the patient and doctor in the event of an abortion is required.

Carry on.

So, you are suggesting that a women could buy herself out of a forced birth, which is really a form of slavery.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.

That pesky constitution protected my reproductive rights until it didn't. It changes. Oh well

Lot harder to change 2nd amendment than one not explicitly mentioned

There is a lot that can be done without changing the 2nd Amendment. The country has for example already decided that felons cannot own guns. Should do the same for anyone who has a documented record of diagnosed mental illness, workplace violence, domestic violence, anger management issues, or any crime whatsoever, that involved a gun in any way whatsoever. Additionally we should consider treating guns for example the way we do cars, requiring mandatory titleing and tagging, requiring any transfer of ownership to be documented, requiring a searchable ownership and records history, requiring regular inspections, requiring written and practical exam, minimum mandatory health requirements and licensing, subject to periodic renewal, and that DOES NOT constitute "infringement."

All of this is an infringement, BY ITS VERY DEFINITION. I understand the ground game; change definitions of words to be cute, but no.

Maybe we should just require a really high tax on guns as well as increase the personal liability insurance requirements. If you can't limit the right to own, perhaps you can make it prohibitively expensive.

So predictable. Like I said, you believe the ends justify the means.

Maybe a $50,000 tax on each the patient and doctor in the event of an abortion is required.

Carry on.

So, you are suggesting that a women could buy herself out of a forced birth, which is really a form of slavery.

I'm not suggesting anything. I'm playing by your rules: the ends justify the means.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.

That pesky constitution protected my reproductive rights until it didn't. It changes. Oh well

Lot harder to change 2nd amendment than one not explicitly mentioned

The justices just need to be changed, not the constitution or the amendments. We're not paying attention to how the right destroyed Roe?

It is an excellent playbook that does not rely on changing the document itself at all. Change out the justices that interpret it and problem solved!

You don't believe in a nation of laws. You believe in a nation of men. In other words, you're dangerous.

You have no morals. It's whatever playbook it takes for each specific situation and then turn it 180 degrees when that doesn't work for you, because the ends justify the means.

By your mindset, all the right has to do is change out the players and you'll be OK with it. If that means by violence, I'm sure you'll still be OK with it. Won't you?


Lookup the Korematsu decision. It was great while it lasted according to you, huh?

The Dred Scott decision was proper, correct?

Plessy vs. Ferguson was awesome, huh? Is that what you believe?

No need for thought. Just pack the court with your mob until you get your way.

I pay attention. The right showed us all how to use the system we have to pursue a political agenda. Don't blame me. They showed us all the way.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.

That pesky constitution protected my reproductive rights until it didn't. It changes. Oh well

Lot harder to change 2nd amendment than one not explicitly mentioned

The justices just need to be changed, not the constitution or the amendments. We're not paying attention to how the right destroyed Roe?

It is an excellent playbook that does not rely on changing the document itself at all. Change out the justices that interpret it and problem solved!

You don't believe in a nation of laws. You believe in a nation of men. In other words, you're dangerous.

You have no morals. It's whatever playbook it takes for each specific situation and then turn it 180 degrees when that doesn't work for you, because the ends justify the means.

By your mindset, all the right has to do is change out the players and you'll be OK with it. If that means by violence, I'm sure you'll still be OK with it. Won't you?


Lookup the Korematsu decision. It was great while it lasted according to you, huh?

The Dred Scott decision was proper, correct?

Plessy vs. Ferguson was awesome, huh? Is that what you believe?

No need for thought. Just pack the court with your mob until you get your way.

I pay attention. The right showed us all how to use the system we have to pursue a political agenda. Don't blame me. They showed us all the way.

What a weak answer. You can do better than that. Push yourself.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.

That pesky constitution protected my reproductive rights until it didn't. It changes. Oh well

Lot harder to change 2nd amendment than one not explicitly mentioned

The justices just need to be changed, not the constitution or the amendments. We're not paying attention to how the right destroyed Roe?

It is an excellent playbook that does not rely on changing the document itself at all. Change out the justices that interpret it and problem solved!

You don't believe in a nation of laws. You believe in a nation of men. In other words, you're dangerous.

You have no morals. It's whatever playbook it takes for each specific situation and then turn it 180 degrees when that doesn't work for you, because the ends justify the means.

By your mindset, all the right has to do is change out the players and you'll be OK with it. If that means by violence, I'm sure you'll still be OK with it. Won't you?


Lookup the Korematsu decision. It was great while it lasted according to you, huh?

The Dred Scott decision was proper, correct?

Plessy vs. Ferguson was awesome, huh? Is that what you believe?

No need for thought. Just pack the court with your mob until you get your way.

I pay attention. The right showed us all how to use the system we have to pursue a political agenda. Don't blame me. They showed us all the way.

What a weak answer. You can do better than that. Push yourself.

Nothing weak about it. It is our lived experience. The right understood that control of SCOTUS controlled what they constitution says about what rights we hold.

It's impressive. They made a plan, stuck with it for many years and got results. What reinvent the wheel? I am no legal scholar but I can learn by watching others succeed.

[Anonymous]

Hey liberals - are you listening? Listen to your own who are now having doubts on the ideology that's wrecking the country...

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.

That pesky constitution protected my reproductive rights until it didn't. It changes. Oh well

Uh, no it did not. There is nothing in the constitution about abortion. That’s actually why RvW was overturned, it’s a State issue specifically because it’s not there. Try again.

Uh, yes it did. SCOTUS said it did for almost 50 years. Then SCOTUS changed and the constitution changed to suit the new ones. See how that works?

Try again.

-Les show me where it’s mentioned in the document, I’ll wait.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The AR clingers are still stuck on the same snarky yet stupid arguments of 10 years ago, "there's no such thing as an assault rifle, it doesn't mean anything" and "AR doesn't mean assault rifle, it means Armalite derp" and now "oh it's only a .223 peashooter" as if ANY of that is in any way relevant. It's NOT. The only things that are relevant is that we have a whole lot of disaffected mostly white male wackos in a mass psychosis gravitating around AR-pattern rifles in some desperate bid to intimidate or "get revenge" on the world for their own dysfunction and they are taking it out on some of the most vulnerable people we have - kids, churchgoers and so on. It's like a cult of sickness and the AR is one of its main icons.

Can you also address the daily shootings in inner-cities which you ignore because it doesn't fit with your agenda? What is your plan for disarming the drug dealers who are constantly shooting people over turf wars for narcotics sales? Just ignore it and ramble on about AR-15's?

DP, we should implement Australia's policy:

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/what-can-australias-reaction-to-a-mass-shooting-teach-us-about-guns-and-gun-control/

- banned the sale and importation of all automatic and semi-automatic rifles and shotguns; forced people to present a legitimate reason, and wait 28 days, to buy a firearm; and – perhaps most significantly – called for a massive, mandatory gun-buyback. Australia's government confiscated and destroyed nearly 700,000 firearms, reducing the number of gun-owning households by half.

Well, if you can muster it, two-thirds of both houses of Congress can vote to propose an amendment, or two-thirds of the state legislatures can ask Congress to call a national convention to propose amendments. To ratify amendments, three-fourths of the state legislatures must approve them, or ratifying conventions in three-fourths of the states must approve them.

Now get on with it!

I spent five minutes googling a policy that I know has been effective. If your point is that it may require a constitutional amendment and will never be implemented by the right, then you need to do some soul searching as to why the right refuses to implement reasonable policies other than "thoughts and prayers"...because muh "freedoms".

It's time for you to get off of google and start UNDERSTANDING issues, not parroting idiocy because you read it.

If it's on the intertubes, why it must be true!

I don't need a lecture from some NRA ass kisser to understand that the majority of voters in this country want stricter gun control and weapons bans and intend to keep at it until they get it.

Yeah, the voters want a lot. Who cares? That pesky Constitution.

That pesky constitution protected my reproductive rights until it didn't. It changes. Oh well

Uh, no it did not. There is nothing in the constitution about abortion. That’s actually why RvW was overturned, it’s a State issue specifically because it’s not there. Try again.

Uh, yes it did. SCOTUS said it did for almost 50 years. Then SCOTUS changed and the constitution changed to suit the new ones. See how that works?

Try again.

-Les show me where it’s mentioned in the document, I’ll wait.

Who cares what I say. I am nobody. Look up what SCOTUS said the document meant in 1972 and what it says now. In 1972, it said women had a right to privacy for these decisions. Now it says we don't. That is how it goes

[Anonymous]

The left needs to continue to win the presidency. (Should not be a problem). Put the Amy Coney Barretts of gun control on SCOTUS when the time comes and there we are!

[Anonymous]

Don't worry. Running around with assault weapons is "settled law". Lol.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry. Running around with assault weapons is "settled law". Lol.

It literally is but ok

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry. Running around with assault weapons is "settled law". Lol.

It literally is but ok

Until it literally is not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry. Running around with assault weapons is "settled law". Lol.

Up until fdr you could order machine guns from a sear catalogue. So yes don’t mistake the massive expansion of government under FDR for the original intent of the constitution.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Don't worry. Running around with assault weapons is "settled law". Lol.

Up until fdr you could order machine guns from a sear catalogue. So yes don’t mistake the massive expansion of government under FDR for the original intent of the constitution.

The intent of the constitution is what SCOTUS says it is.

[Anonymous]

And we had an assault weapons ban for 10 years, well after fdr, and it was not ruled unconstitutional by the courts. It was fine and life went on just fine and we will have it again.