Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 22 Feb 2023, 8:57 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 8:57 am

Tiny,

You offer a limited menu of canned crap of your imagining. 

It isn't worth reading, and you don't have the peas to support it.

I did support it.  There was no FED GOV legislature to restrict firearm legislature from 1791 to 1934.  Additionally, Madison funded the development of processes to mass produce repeating rifles.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... amendment/

Consider it supported.  And you don't have the peas to argue against it and support your argument.  

maineman » 22 Feb 2023, 8:57 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 8:57 am

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How is preventing seven year olds from purchasing an AR-15 NOT an infringement on the rights of the people?

You really lack common sense. You leftist are really retarded 

The US holds the world record for school shootings.That is a fact.
Part of the reason is this:\
The more guns are in circulation,the more Americans are going to shoot one another and themselves.
If the law only applied to weapons available in the early 1800's,that might be acceptable.

Huey » 22 Feb 2023, 9:00 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 9:00 am

I did support it. There was no FED GOV legislature to restrict firearm legislature from 1791 to 1934.  Additionally, Madison funded the development of processes to mass produce repeating rifles.  

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/vol ... amendment/

Consider it supported.  And you don't have the peas to argue against it and support your argument.

Supporting it means responding, directly, to challenges.

Which you consistently fail to do.
 

Z09 » 22 Feb 2023, 8:54 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 8:54 am

Tell us...
If you think we shouldn't be allowed to arm ourselves why don't you forfeit YOUR gun?

Lead by example big guy

WHEN DID I EVER SAY THAT WE SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED TO ARM OURSELVES?

DO YOU THINK A SHOULDER MOUNTED STINGER MISSILE NOT MUCH BIGGER THAN A TUBE OF WRAPPING PAPER SHOULD BE AVAILABLE FOR CHILDREN TO BUY?

WHAT ABOUT AN AR-15 WITH A 60 ROUND BARREL CLIP?  
 
 

FJB » 22 Feb 2023, 8:46 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 8:46 am

The problem is the fbi, they are not enforcing existing gun laws. They are more concerned with going after God fearing True Americans.

This **** is the reason why you're a waste of otherwise decent bandwidth.  Spend some time watching something besides Tucker Carlson.  You "law and order" hypocrite twats were defending law enforcement including the FBI right up until the FBI started going after the criminal element from your side of the cultural divide.  **** hypocrite.
 
 

IkeBana » 22 Feb 2023, 9:04 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 9:04 am

This **** is the reason why you're a waste of otherwise decent bandwidth.  Spend some time watching something besides Tucker Carlson.  You "law and order" hypocrite twats were defending law enforcement including the FBI right up until the FBI started going after the criminal element from your side of the cultural divide.  **** hypocrite.

**** the fbi, it is just the military arm of the democrats

maineman » 22 Feb 2023, 8:56 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 8:56 am

Do you think it is "incorrect" for someone to agree with another person some of the time and disagree with them at other times?  And if so, is it appropriate to use the issues one agrees with to bolster an argument one is having and not be compelled to stand behind the author on each and every issue past/present and in the future?

That would depend on how someone presents the other person.  If they are making the claim the person they are agreeing with/quoting/referring to is a recognized scholar on the subject, be it any field of science, economic issues, the Constitution, etc., then cherry picking their positions in that subject matter is hypocritical (IMO).

FJB » 22 Feb 2023, 9:02 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 9:02 am

You really lack common sense. You leftist are really retarded

So... are you saying that there ARE some gun control measures that you support?

But only the ones that YOU support are good and patriotic and American and the ones that I support are nothing but leftist gun grabbing?

ConsRule » 22 Feb 2023, 9:05 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 9:05 am

That would depend on how someone presents the other person.  If they are making the claim the person they are agreeing with/quoting/referring to is a recognized scholar on the subject, be it any field of science, economic issues, the Constitution, etc., then cherry picking their positions in that subject matter is hypocritical (IMO).

So... you are saying that one cannot look back at the entire judicial record of an appellate judge and agree with some of their decisions and disagree with others?  If we think they were right about ANY ruling, we must buy into their decisions on EVERY ruling?

Is that your final answer?

Blackvegetable » 22 Feb 2023, 9:03 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 9:03 am

Supporting it means responding, directly, to challenges.

Which you consistently fail to do.

I have made my point.  This is not one of your threads or one of my threads.  Bring you supported point and challenge it. 

My two supported points.

1.  No FED GOV firearm regulations from 1791 thru 1934 restricting ownership. 

2. James Madison, considered the Father of the 2nd Amendment, funded research in the development of mass production of repeating arms so the common citizen could afford them.  

There ya go.  

maineman » 22 Feb 2023, 9:07 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 9:07 am

So... are you saying that there ARE some gun control measures that you support?

But only the ones that YOU support are good and patriotic and American and the ones that I support are nothing but leftist gun grabbing?

common sense controls. 

maineman » 22 Feb 2023, 9:13 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 9:13 am

So... you are saying that one cannot look back at the entire judicial record of an appellate judge and agree with some of their decisions and disagree with others?  If we think they were right about ANY ruling, we must buy into their decisions on EVERY ruling?

Is that your final answer?

Is that what I said?
 

Huey » 22 Feb 2023, 9:18 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 9:18 am

I have made my point.  This is not one of your threads or one of my threads.  Bring you supported point and challenge it. 

My two supported points.

1.  No FED GOV firearm regulations from 1791 thru 1934 restricting ownership. 

2. James Madison, considered the Father of the 2nd Amendment, funded research in the development of mass production of repeating arms so the common citizen could afford them.  

There ya go.

It's **** like this.

You've expressed your point.

You haven't "made" it.

That only happens if you can defend the process that got you there.
 

FJB » 22 Feb 2023, 9:21 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 9:21 am

common sense controls.

and you are the only one who gets to define common sense.

and where in the constitution does it say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall only be slightly infringed, and then, only if the infringements are common sense"?

BV and MM trying so hard

maineman » 22 Feb 2023, 9:24 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 9:24 am

and you are the only one who gets to define common sense.

and where in the constitution does it say "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall only be slightly infringed, and then, only if the infringements are common sense"?

move on dickhead, we know you are all for taking our guns.

The longer people are allowed to own guns that facilitate school and other mass shootings,the more of these shootings we will have.

maineman » 22 Feb 2023, 8:57 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 8:57 am

"the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

How is preventing seven year olds from purchasing an AR-15 NOT an infringement on the rights of the people?

According to the 2nd, it would be an infringement.  However, one can refuse to sell to a seven year old because of contract law.

Let's see if you can figure out why.
 

ConsRule » 22 Feb 2023, 9:23 am » wrote: ↑

22 Feb 2023, 9:23 am

Is that what I said?

THIS IS EXACTLY what you said:

 "If they are making the claim the person they are agreeing with/quoting/referring to is a recognized scholar on the subject, be it any field of science, economic issues, the Constitution, etc., then cherry picking their positions in that subject matter is hypocritical." 



I, therefore,  must agree with all of the judge's positions on the constitution and if I don't, and I refer to any of his positions about any constitutional issue - even ones where I am in agreement with him, I am being hypocritical.

Again...is that your final answer?