'Hell, yes, we're going to take your AR-15, your AK-47' - Beto "Whitey" O'rourke

Thanks for proving me right
That doesn't say.... Regulate the shit out of....

You fucked up, again. Ignorant drunkard.

I tried to bold the pertinent areas about the ability to regulate and even cited the most extreme regulation- banning. But you’re too fucking stupid to grasp it.
 
I tried to bold the pertinent areas about the ability to regulate and even cited the most extreme regulation- banning. But you’re too fucking stupid to grasp it.

The court specifically held the regulation was NOT UNLIMITED you ignorant tool. That was the whole point of the case, was how far can a government entity regulate gins in light of the second amendment as it applies to individuals.

You are seriously the dumbest person I've come across.
 
The court specifically held the regulation was NOT UNLIMITED you ignorant tool. That was the whole point of the case, was how far can a government entity regulate gins in light of the second amendment as it applies to individuals.

You are seriously the dumbest person I've come across.

Banning is as extreme as it gets, stoner. And it’s constitutional.

God, what a fucking stupid person.
 
Banning is as extreme as it gets, stoner. And it’s constitutional.

God, what a fucking stupid person.

That is absolutely not what SCOTUS said you lying scumbag

Do you really want to go there with me?

Let's make it a one on one debate in any forum you choose. Just you and I.

Any mod can make it so. I'm sick of running around the board for this debate, agree to make it a one on one and have a mod make it a debate thread. I am pretty sure there is a section for that or they will make one.

Unless you're a chicken.
 
"The impetus for the National Firearms Act of 1934 was the gangland crime of the Prohibition era, such as the St. Valentine's Day Massacre of 1929, and the attempted assassination of President Franklin D. Roosevelt in 1933.[3][4]:824[5][6] Like the current National Firearms Act (NFA), the 1934 Act required NFA firearms to be registered and taxed. The $200 tax was quite prohibitive at the time (equivalent to $3,746 in 2018). With a few exceptions, the tax amount is unchanged.[5][6]"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Firearms_Act

Unconstitutional.
 
They interpret the Constitution, and they did determine that gun rights can be regulated, simple fact

WRONG. Changing the Constitution is not interpreting it. It is CHANGING it. The Supreme Court does not have authority to change the Constitution. Neither to they have the authority to interpret it. See Article III of the Constitution of the United States.
 
It depends on how any legislation is written. For instance, if there’s a grandfather clause, that’s one thing.

If not, any possession of those weapons makes you in violation of the law

WRONG. The law in question is the Constitution of the United States.
 
Do two things, you massively ignorant stoner.

First, try to educate yourself on Heller.

Second, read his ENTIRE quote.

If you understand English and pay attention to what he has added to the debate, you might figure it out.

But you won’t because you’re so incredibly lazy and stupid

The Supreme Court does NOT have authority to change the Constitution.
 
Back
Top