And now we have Tuesday’s mass shooting,

Nobody said they changed the Constitution, rather they interpret it, did you ever question why the Government can regulate say such as insurance when there is nothing remotely in the Commerce clause mentioning insurance

you don't have a clear understanding how that 'requirement' came in to effect, do you?

the states were blackmailed in to the insurance requirement by the withholding of federal highway funds if they did not......same for the nationwide speed limit at one time, as well as seat belt laws.
 
Not at all, fits exactly into the distorted view of “freedom” that gun advocates echo, if I have an inherent right to do anything I want, why is anything taken out of the picture

Lie. Murder is not an inherent right.
Extreme argument fallacy (hyperbole and fixation on sensationalist bullshit). Cherry picking fallacy. Compositional error fallacy (bigotry). Hoplophobia.
 
you don't have a clear understanding how that 'requirement' came in to effect, do you?

the states were blackmailed in to the insurance requirement by the withholding of federal highway funds if they did not......same for the nationwide speed limit at one time, as well as seat belt laws.

Bingo.
 
The 2nd amendment prohibits the government from infringing on the State's right of self defense (through the use of militias) and it prohibits the government from infringing on the individuals right to keep and bear arms (that means ANY weapon).

'Not infringed' means NO regulation or law may restrict weapons or from the States forming militias.

More bullshit, no one, no SCOTUS, no Constitutional scholar, or anyone has been able to offer a definitive explanation of the prefatory clause, your self accommodating understanding means zip outside of NRA propaganda
 
Ah, no, cause the overwhelming number of people operating a vehicle are licensed so of course the number will be higher, and horse drawn wagons could never hit speeds up to a 120+

the government was not given power to regulate the right of travel..........or are you saying that they were?
 
That form is kept by the dealer forever. Stupid lying fuck.

it must be kept, but if that dealer should ever close it's doors, it must surrender those forms to the ATF............or have them ready for the ATF to look through.........so while it's not the government 'officially' registering.........they are registered
 
More bullshit, no one, no SCOTUS, no Constitutional scholar, or anyone has been able to offer a definitive explanation of the prefatory clause, your self accommodating understanding means zip outside of NRA propaganda

The 2nd amendment speak for itself. It is clear.
The similar wording across several State constitutions also speak for themselves. They are clear.

You simply do not recognize the Constitution of the United States nor the constitution of any State. You support Democrats turning the federal government in an oligarchy. You support totalitarianism. You support fascism and communism. You support treason.
 
More bullshit, no one, no SCOTUS, no Constitutional scholar, or anyone has been able to offer a definitive explanation of the prefatory clause, your self accommodating understanding means zip outside of NRA propaganda

because it never needed one..........the definition of a well regulated militia at the time of ratification was accepted as the people of each state knowing how to shoot and fight as a group, if necessary.
 
Lie. Murder is not an inherent right.
Extreme argument fallacy (hyperbole and fixation on sensationalist bullshit). Cherry picking fallacy. Compositional error fallacy (bigotry). Hoplophobia.

Here we go with fallacy bullshit again

Every time “nightingale” is caught short in one of his posts he immediately goes to his Google list of fallacies and imports one he himself doesn’t understand

Why? If owning a gun is an inherent right and prohibiting such interferes with one’s “freedom,” why wouldn’t murder fall under the same considerations, where in the natural world does it say murder isn’t equally a right
 
Why? How can any behavior be contained without restricting another’s “freedom? “

your definition of freedom is not the accepted definition of freedom. you're using hyperbole in the extreme to try to bolster an argument that freedom must be restricted, which is a false argument on all fronts
 
Back
Top