After the dems ban AR-15's then what?

[WCD9973]

So trying to avoid the circle. (see my first post in this thread that predicted this very road)

The consitution also makes it very clear states select electors for president and can select them anyway they want.
And, you argue that the consitution is dessigned to limit what the fed government can force the states to do (agreed).
So curious, why no threads from you about how wrong Trump is to try to interface in state Presidental elections when it comes to mail in voting? Why is he suing NJ and you are quiet.
A direct attack from the President on a state doing what they have been given the power to do?

I know it’s not related to this OP but curious

[johnwk2]

@WCD9973

I know it’s not related to this OP but curious

Exactly. So stay on the subject.

Now, what do you have to say with regard to the documented facts in THIS POST? Is it not clear our Constitution forbids our federal government from entering the states and meddle in the right to keep and bear arms?

JWK

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States, respectively, or to the people.___ Tenth Amendment

[Guvnah]

@johnwk2

Keep in mind our Founders intended ordinary citizens to keep and bear arms [a contemporary fire arm used by foot soldiers] so they would be ready and able to defend themselves against a despotic government if necessary.

People in those days owned heavy weaponry (such as cannons) and even battleships. Certainly not the average citizen, of course, but some individuals DID own such things.

I’m not pointing this out to suggest that this should be the case today. Don’t get me wrong. (And I’m saying this, not specifically to you, johnwk, but for those who want to contort what I said into some strawman, as commonly occurs around here.) I’m just pointing out that the 2A means more than just single-shot muskets. And yes, I see the point that you’re making – the AR15 is a reasonable equivalent of the today’s foot soldier’s musket.

[Guvnah]

@WCD9973

I have answered 3 times now.

Your 3 points are not the end-game either. They’re just among the current demands.

[WuWei]

@W_and_C

@altair1013

@W_and_C

That’s true, most criminal shootings is done with handguns.

However…

AR’s don’t cause mass shootings. Do you think not having AR’s will change anything? So maybe by using two pistols a mass shooter kills 15 people instead of 20? Will the dems be happy with that? I’m asking what the end game is? Because nobody seems to know. Any idea?

Yes, that will be better because 5 people will be alive as opposed to dead. Am I wrong ?

If we further eliminate easy access to firearms , maybe the crazy person is forced to use a knife and stab people, so now it’s more likely that he kills around 5 people and 15 people are alive compared to an AR. To me, that’s preferable.

Yes, you are wrong.

[WuWei]

@WCD9973

and do not agree that our founding fathers intended the right to be absolute.

Based on what?

[WCD9973]

Your opinion. Which is as vaild as mine. Prob less so because I’m a memember of the party you are talking about.

[WuWei]

@Nemesis

Same ■■■■ different day.

We were told categorically by cons that if Obama was elected in 2008 the second amendment was dead. We were then told it again in 2012.

Guess what? The 2A is alive and well.

It is not “alive and well”. It has lib 'rona and is on a ventilator and taking HCL by the handful.

The right has been diminished with the complicity of the judiciary in the name of “common good” and “reasonable”.

[WCD9973]

Because I’ve done this to many times and already outlined how this convo will go
don’t have the energy to repeat it again.

@WCD9973

This is where you say “but many cities have those laws and it’s still bad” and I’ll say "but most of those weapons used in the cities come from outside the city. Which is why we need these laws to be nationally.
Then you say they won’t eliminate crime. And I’ll say “perfection is not the enemy of good”
The someone else will say those laws are unconstitutional
And I’ll point out that the courts disagree with you and have all been rules consitutional
And round and round and round we go.

But you aren’t really asking for the plan that is out there, been implement in some states, and is even on the platform are you?

You are really just trying to say “Dems want to take your guns

[Nemesis]

@WuWei

@Nemesis

Same ■■■■ different day.

We were told categorically by cons that if Obama was elected in 2008 the second amendment was dead. We were then told it again in 2012.

Guess what? The 2A is alive and well.

It is not “alive and well”. It has lib 'rona and is on a ventilator and taking HCL by the handful.

The right has been diminished with the complicity of the judiciary in the name of “common good” and “reasonable”.

You can still own firearms, you can still buy ammunition.Nothing has been taken away.

[WuWei]

You don’t have the right to tell me what I will and will not do “nationally” from Virginia. The rights in the Bill of Rights are individual, not collective.

If you’re scared, buy a dog.

[altair1013]

@Axxowiz

They obviously don’t care about the violence in the inner cities, even the biggest leftwing minority group BLM ignores it and instead focuses on the 19 unarmed people killed by cops, which roughly equates to a person having more of a chance being struck by lightning three times than being killed by the police unarmed.

Blacks are tools to be used for their political advantage. Nothing more.

[WuWei]

@Nemesis

@WuWei

@Nemesis

Same ■■■■ different day.

We were told categorically by cons that if Obama was elected in 2008 the second amendment was dead. We were then told it again in 2012.

Guess what? The 2A is alive and well.

It is not “alive and well”. It has lib 'rona and is on a ventilator and taking HCL by the handful.

The right has been diminished with the complicity of the judiciary in the name of “common good” and “reasonable”.

You can still own firearms, you can still buy ammunition.Nothing has been taken away.

Not at all true. A lot has been taken away. You might want to actually read the 2nd Amendment and then educate yourself on what the current situation is vis -à- vis the same.

“You can still own firearms…” indicates a lack of understanding.

[WCD9973]

I have no clue what you are trying to say here.
Like I’ve read it 4 times and have no idea

[W_and_C]

@WuWei

@W_and_C

@altair1013

@W_and_C

That’s true, most criminal shootings is done with handguns.

However…

AR’s don’t cause mass shootings. Do you think not having AR’s will change anything? So maybe by using two pistols a mass shooter kills 15 people instead of 20? Will the dems be happy with that? I’m asking what the end game is? Because nobody seems to know. Any idea?

Yes, that will be better because 5 people will be alive as opposed to dead. Am I wrong ?

If we further eliminate easy access to firearms , maybe the crazy person is forced to use a knife and stab people, so now it’s more likely that he kills around 5 people and 15 people are alive compared to an AR. To me, that’s preferable.

Yes, you are wrong.

Well you must really hate those conceptual five people then

[johnwk2]

@WCD9973

Because I’ve done this to many times and already outlined how this convo will go
don’t have the energy to repeat it again.

So, instead of addressing my post and its content, you decide to deflect.

JWK

Let’s not forget Joe Biden does not support the right to work and individuals being free to negotiate their own employment contracts. He wants every American to pay a union representative a monthly kickback fee in order to work in America .

[WuWei]

@WCD9973

I have no clue what you are trying to say here.
Like I’ve read it 4 times and have no idea

@WCD9973

Which is why we need these laws to be nationally.

And there is no “Charleston loophole”.

[altair1013]

@johnwk2

So, instead of addressing my post and its content, you decide to deflect.

That’s a pattern with them. Either deflect or point out what a bad person you are for thinking as you do.

[WuWei]

@W_and_C

@WuWei

@W_and_C

@altair1013

@W_and_C

That’s true, most criminal shootings is done with handguns.

However…

AR’s don’t cause mass shootings. Do you think not having AR’s will change anything? So maybe by using two pistols a mass shooter kills 15 people instead of 20? Will the dems be happy with that? I’m asking what the end game is? Because nobody seems to know. Any idea?

Yes, that will be better because 5 people will be alive as opposed to dead. Am I wrong ?

If we further eliminate easy access to firearms , maybe the crazy person is forced to use a knife and stab people, so now it’s more likely that he kills around 5 people and 15 people are alive compared to an AR. To me, that’s preferable.

Yes, you are wrong.

Well you must really hate those conceptual five people then

See: Virginia Tech shooting

And he wasn’t even trained. It’s not the arrow, it’s the Indian.

[WCD9973]

Yes there is.
And most of the laws that are proposed and in the platform are consitutional ok (per courts, whose opinions matter more then yours).

Either way, the OP asked a question. I answered. Multiple times. You all can not like the answers, not agree with the answer, or think it’s a big lie
But those are the answers to the questions.

I’m not gonna have yet ANOTHER hypathical gun control debate.