Liberal Forum

Blackvegetable » 04 Sep 2024, 12:17 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2024, 12:17 pm

Any of the numerous sports for which a modified assault rifle, with a high capacity clip, is essential.

And where in the 2nd Amendment does it state that the only rights we have to own a gun is if they're used for sports?
It's none of your **** business what I want to use my gun for as long as it's legal!

 

Blackvegetable » 04 Sep 2024, 1:36 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2024, 1:36 pm

You are not a credible source.

You know what to do. 

*Huey » 04 Sep 2024, 1:37 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2024, 1:37 pm

You know what to do.

Accept another concession.

Blackvegetable » 04 Sep 2024, 1:26 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2024, 1:26 pm

Still sorting Assault Rifle from Machine Gun from Main Battle Rifle?

You say something about stalking?

*Huey » 04 Sep 2024, 1:17 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2024, 1:17 pm

WIth over 400 million guns in circulation please explain how this ban will work.

And like the other nitwit please learn the nomenclature.

start at post 12
 

JohnEdgarSlowHorses » 04 Sep 2024, 1:04 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2024, 1:04 pm

Hey - I got pet rocks

Make 'em part of your militia and we can do joint exercises. 

Cannonpointer » 04 Sep 2024, 2:00 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2024, 2:00 pm

Make 'em part of your militia and we can do joint exercises.

you bring your guns and I will bring my sling and stone.

 

JohnEdgarSlowHorses » 04 Sep 2024, 1:06 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2024, 1:06 pm

I answered the question. How about you "keep up"

Not the first time. You responded to his question with a question. 

**** that noise. Answer questions the first time , coward. 

Wait...are you @Blackvegetable   ?

@Cannonpointer  
 
 

How about a Ban on criminals.

Vegas » 04 Sep 2024, 1:01 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2024, 1:01 pm

How about you just answer Huey's question? It was a fair question. You evading it means that you don't care about the children. 

Don't be a coward.

Post 12
Act your age
 

JohnEdgarSlowHorses » 04 Sep 2024, 11:54 am » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2024, 11:54 am

Well let's start with banning the sales, manufacture and possession of ammunition.
you can own that gun, good luck finding ammunition.

Tell me, newbie.
What do the words, "The right of the people shall not be infringed to keep and bear arms" mean to you?
Have you ever even heard them before?

Why don't you do a quick study on what has happened in other countries when the government has confiscated all the guns and taken away all rights to gun ownership?
Here, let me help you:

Here are a few more examples:

• 1956: Cambodia; citizens disarmed – 1 million “intellectuals” killed
• 1964: Guatemala; citizens disarmed – 100,000 Mayan Indians massacred
• 1970: Uganda; citizens disarmed – 300,000 Christians put to death

Next, please read this eloquent statement by Sen. Rand Paul:

"The founders never intended for Americans to trust their government.  Our entire constitution was predicated on the notion that government was a necessary evil, to be restrained and minimized as much as possible."

And finally, here's why you have thousands of gun-toting criminals that would love to see what you propose:

I am a criminal who owns guns.
I don't buy my guns at a store.
I don't give a **** about your stupid gun laws.
Background checks won't stop me.
Oh, and thank you for letting me wear a face cover in public everywhere so I can commit my crimes without people being able to identify me.
Keep focusing on taking guns away from law-abiding citizens.
THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT WE WANT!

And if you still haven't changed your opinion, please see a doctor and obtain a prescription for a pair of testicles.
This ain't Candy Land we're living in, and the sooner you realize that, the better off everyone will be!
 
 

Zeets2 » 04 Sep 2024, 2:21 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2024, 2:21 pm

Tell me, newbie.
What do the words, "The right of the people shall not be infringed to keep and bear arms" mean to you?
Have you ever even heard them before?

Why don't you do a quick study on what has happened in other countries when the government has confiscated all the guns and taken away all rights to gun ownership?
Here, let me help you:

Here are a few more examples:

Next, please read this eloquent statement by Sen. Rand Paul:

And finally, here's why you have thousands of gun-toting criminals that would love to see what you propose:


And if you still haven't changed your opinion, please see a doctor and obtain a prescription for a pair of testicles.
This ain't Candy Land we're living in, and the sooner you realize that, the better off everyone will be!

Which militia do you belong to? What is your rank?
 

JohnEdgarSlowHorses » 04 Sep 2024, 2:19 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2024, 2:19 pm

Post 12
Act your age

**** idiot. Huey asked a question in post 2 and you responded with a question in post 3. 

You waiting until post 12 is just you being a **** coward. 

Grow up, coward. 

This is definitely BV. 

Vegas » 04 Sep 2024, 2:23 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2024, 2:23 pm

**** idiot. Huey asked a question in post 2 and you responded with a question in post 3. 

You waiting until post 12 is just you being a **** coward. 

Grow up, coward. 

This is definitely BV.

Act your age
I answered a similar question in 12.
 

PhiloBeddo » 04 Sep 2024, 2:14 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2024, 2:14 pm

How about a Ban on criminals.

how about gun ownership is criminal?
 

Man I hope Joe Biden steps up and BANS guns before his term is up.

JohnEdgarSlowHorses » 04 Sep 2024, 2:22 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2024, 2:22 pm

Which militia do you belong to? What is your rank?

Clearly, you're unaware that the Supreme Court already has ruled on that distinction in 2008 in District of Columbia v Heller:
Maybe it's time you educated yourself regarding the 2nd Amendment:

District of Columbia v. Heller, 554 U.S. 570 (2008), is a landmark decision of the Supreme Court of the United States.
It ruled that the Second Amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects an individual's right to keep and bear arms—unconnected with service in a militia—for traditionally lawful purposes such as self-defense within the home, and that the District of Columbia's handgun ban and requirement that lawfully owned rifles and shotguns be kept "unloaded and disassembled or bound by a trigger lock" violated this guarantee.[1] It also stated that the right to bear arms is not unlimited and that certain restrictions on guns and gun ownership were permissible. It was the first Supreme Court case to decide whether the Second Amendment protects an individual right to keep and bear arms for self-defense or whether the right was only intended for state militias.[2] 

Anything else you don't understand about it?
 

JohnEdgarSlowHorses » 04 Sep 2024, 2:26 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2024, 2:26 pm

Act your age
I answered a similar question in 12.

Grow up. 

You responded with a question instead of answering it the first time. 

Coward. 

As corrupt as this government is, no way in hell do I give up my guns. Communism always comes for your guns first.

Zeets2 » 04 Sep 2024, 2:29 pm » wrote: ↑

04 Sep 2024, 2:29 pm

Clearly, you're unaware that the Supreme Court already has ruled on that distinction in 2008 in District of Columbia v Heller:
Maybe it's time you educated yourself regarding the 2nd Amendment:

Anything else you don't understand about it?

Cleary I am aware and Justice Scalia made a bad decision. 

Justice Scalia’s justification of that decision, while rooted in an analysis of the amendment’s eighteenth-century context, was based on a fundamental misconception of the way that gun rights and militia service were understood and debated during the eighteenth century. It is not inherently bad history to say that the Second Amendment protects an individual right to bear arms; it is, however, bad history to declare that such a ruling was a return to the “original understanding” of the amendment.  And it is especially bad history to claim that the protection of an individual right was the primary reason for the Second Amendment’s inclusion in the Bill of Rights.

https://firearmslaw.duke.edu/2020/10/wh ... ad-history