Here They Come...Again

[Supreme_War_Pig]

Actually it seems to me that you are the one who is confused.

If you can provide information showing that something ruled constitutional is actually unconstitutional I’d be happy to look at it. Likewise the use of prior restraint used in a context outside the first ammendment.

[Samm]

@Rurudyne

Could you see the FBI raiding Forged in Fire because it encourages the creation of functional melee weapons unsanctioned by Congress?

Not to mention cruelty to dead animals.

[Samm]

@Supreme_War_Pig

Okay then. They are by definition constitutional.

That’s not how it works.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Samm

@Supreme_War_Pig

Okay then. They are by definition constitutional.

That’s not how it works.

It seems to me that calling a thing constitutional after it undergoes judicial review (and is not struck down), is entirely reasonable

[Samm]

Sorry … but that’s not how it works. And its unreasonable as well.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

It’s just as reasonable as declaring something unconstitutional when it hasn’t been ruled as such

[WuWei]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@Samm

@Supreme_War_Pig

Okay then. They are by definition constitutional.

That’s not how it works.

It seems to me that calling a thing constitutional after it undergoes judicial review (and is not struck down), is entirely reasonable

They didn’t call it Constitutional.

[Supreme_War_Pig]

Fine. My point is that it isn’t unconstitutional

[WuWei]

Yes it is. They rationalized it as “necessary”.

[Samm]

@Supreme_War_Pig

It’s just as reasonable as declaring something unconstitutional when it hasn’t been ruled as such

“Shall not be infringed” That is all you need to know.

[zantax]

@Rurudyne

Could you see the FBI raiding Forged in Fire because it encourages the creation of functional melee weapons unsanctioned by Congress?

They will cut!

[Supreme_War_Pig]

@Samm

@Supreme_War_Pig

It’s just as reasonable as declaring something unconstitutional when it hasn’t been ruled as such

“Shall not be infringed” That is all you need to know.

Great. Please show where background checks have shown to be an infringement, and therefore unconstitutional,

[rp5x5]

All the big-talking, RINO, pretend Republican, spineless.

You let this happen. You let the election be stolen and sat there with never-Trump insanity, flowing in your veins, and fake know it all cowardice.

What a bunch of phonys.
Abbot, saying 'we have to stop Big-Tech censorship-----". Then saying, “GAB has no place in Texas.”

A bunch of sissy-bots.

[rp5x5]

BACKGROUND CHECK: Who did you vote for?

[Samm]

@Supreme_War_Pig

@Samm

@Supreme_War_Pig

It’s just as reasonable as declaring something unconstitutional when it hasn’t been ruled as such

“Shall not be infringed” That is all you need to know.

Great. Please show where background checks have shown to be an infringement, and therefore unconstitutional,

Its simple. Do you need the permission of the Government to speak?

[altair1013]

@WuWei

Shelia Jackson Lee is no Texan.

Here’s how they do it. The feds make you apply for a license to own a firearm. Then they don’t bother to process the application. You sit in limbo for years. I believe that N.Y. already does this.

[altair1013]

@Samm

Its simple. Do you need the permission of the Government to speak?

Not yet.

[WuWei]

Hawaii hasn’t approved a permit in several years.

[Ceasar]

@Steel-W0LF

@RTchoke

@Steel-W0LF

They really do want a war don’t they?

Oh no, they want UNITY!!! remember?

I think someone needs to explain how pouring gasoline on the fire isn’t the way to make that happen

I honestly think they do want it.

Always watch actions over listening to words.

I do too.

[Ceasar]

I will not comply. Not one of MY guns will be turned in, “bought back”, destroyed, or confiscated. Not my ammo, not my gun accessories, nothing to do with my guns.

I will not surrender my rights. It will not just be taken from my cold dead hand. It will be taken over the takers dead bodies as well.

I’m not alone.

At what point do we say enough?