Sensitive = feelings = prog. Yep … it’s a prog thing.
Now you’re making the case against single mothers?
They lied. Short barrel shotguns were used extensively in the trenches in WWI.
If anything, in their zeal to “address crime”, they made the case for having the same weapons as the military.
Miller was a SCOTUS screw up.
The bottom line is that they don’t give a rip about consequences so long as their own rights are secure.
Why should I? They aren’t my consequences, I didn’t shoot them.
Talking about mental illness is just to have something to say.
Not for me.
the insane claim that the 2nd asserts anyone can own/bear any arms with no restrictions (aka regulations).
Except that’s what it says.
Prior to that time, that claim was not recognized or pushed, except by radicals.
Radical cons played the long game…and they have been winning.
What is radical about the right to keep and bear arms?
There were no laws before 1934 regarding arms.
Well, there you go. And what was going on in 1934 that scared the pols?
Let’s stay on topic please.
You might want to read the constitution. Because the 2nd amendment says anyone can own/bear arms without any restrictions. Only radicals push for laws that are unconstitutional. And all gun laws are unconstitutional.
And racist.
Oldandtired:You might want to read the constitution. Because the 2nd amendment says anyone can own/bear arms without any restrictions. Only radicals push for laws that are unconstitutional. And all gun laws are unconstitutional.
The Supreme Court disagrees with you. This Supreme Court, no less.
No, they know.
Steel-W0LF:Wow. Way to miss the forest for the trees.
No mention of an individual’s right to bear arms. Arms can be regulated.
The People!
Only radicals push for laws that are unconstitutional. And all gun laws are unconstitutiona
Yea Ronald Reagan the patron saint of Conservatism and the NRA are known radicals to conservatives…
“The Mulford Act was passed really directly in response to the Black Panther Party bearing arms and self-defense legally.” The bill limiting the right to openly carry loaded guns was supported by the National Rifle Association and signed into law by then Gov. Ronald Regan in 1967"
It’s not confusion, it’s gaslighting.
Yep, it is true. But do you understand you’re making my case, not yours?
I wasn’t responding to your post…
I’m responding to yours. And giving you credit.
Jezcoe: TheRedComet:Ordinance. Not arms. The military controls access differently between the two and always have throughout history.
That is a weird and arbitrary distinction to make in my opinion.
No right is absolute. They all have restrictions. Like freedom of speech is not absolute because we don’t protect fighting words or inducing panic.
There is nothing weird or arbitrary about it. The distinction between ordnance and arms has been around for many centuries. As usual, your opinion sucks. (“Fighting words” … )
Both the First and Second Amendments are absolute (“make no law abridging” and “shall not infringe” are precisely clear.) What neither the 1st or 2nd Amendment do is absolve you of responsibility if you do harm with your speech or arm.
The first amendment is not absolute.
I am also amused that second amendment absolutists are willing to accept categorization… like if the Government simply made laws on munitions and not arms that that would be acceptable… because you see the Constitution says “Arms” and that is it.
“It is a principle that the right to a thing gives a right to the means without which it could not be used, that is to say, that the means follow their end.” --Thomas Jefferson: Report on Navigation of the Mississippi, 1791.
How do you defend your family with a locked up weapon?
With the hopes and dreams that the predator is as stupid as the dude with a locked gun?
How do you defend your family with a locked up weapon?
I don’t live in fear of someone breaking into my house, accosting me on the street or in my car…But thats just me.