Discussion in 'Question of the Month' started by carbinemike, Apr 2, 2021.
Why won't the Supreme Court take on 2A gun cases even with a conservative majority?
Because what the pinkos did to Trump, they can do to anyone.
Lol. I thought we were gonna have a non political question of the month this month? Lol Like annuals or perennials ? Ford vs Chevy? Roasted vs fried? What the heck has happened to music since the 70s/80s? Casinos or Wall Street? Sweat pants or stretch slacks? Velcro or slip on shoes? Mullet or skullet? Does candy corn count as a vegetable? Early or late risers? .22 for fun or profit? ? ?
Bird or buck for home defense? Maybe that one's still a little too political hehe
In all seriousness I agree though.
Been compromised since the ACA ruling.
Campaigned that it wasn’t a tax. SCOTUS rules it’s a tax... Roberts compromised.
Here are your answers...Annuals, Chevy, smoker, music is much worse, neither, shoe laces, neither, no, early, .22 for fun.
Cadmann, we already did bird or buck for home defense. Buck won lol
You were looking for Crawford.
It's perfectly fine if the question of the month is political.
Even if it may be offensive to democrats for pointing at the elephant in the room.
And I even support anyones right to be a democrat if that's what you want.
But I also have the right to believe that if anyone does support them at this point are complicit to every bad thing they do as a result. Otherwise, they would've #walkaway like many thousands of people have already done.
It’s all good John. I only brought it up because Cadd made mention of a less gloomy question once in a while during last months topic.
I think the justices are letting politics and public opinion sway their opinions rather than just doing their jobs.
My guess is that unless the case brought before them was very specific, and that they could rule on that specific issue, it won’t even be considered. There doesn’t seem to be many points about 2A that are cut and dried 100% of the time.
And to think when the founding fathers wrote and accepted
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED
you would think it would be so self explanatory that even a retard could understand it.
After Joe Biden tapped Beto O’Rourke on the shoulder and said he would get those ARs, I decided that any Democrat who owned a gun would take note of this.
Evidently notetaking is not one of their skills.
It would seem simple enough, if that non infringement clause wasn’t to facilitate the previous “ well regulated militia of free states “. With no official military back then, the militia model was imperative.
I’m pretty sure many of them were taking notes when the assault weapons ban was enthusiastically supported by Ronald Reagan back in the early 90s.. so no matter what happens, somebody is always gonna get jacked..
The US was never intended to have a standing army either.
And even with a standing army, you better believe there will be patriots that join the fight against any invasion even to this day.
Just remember why the Japanese didn't have a massive land invasion.
"because there would be a rifle behind every blade of grass".
Ronald Reagan banned machineguns in 1986. I will never support this idea. I will leave a video below of that fiasco.
Bill Clinton banned semiautomatics that looked like machineguns in 1994. I will never support this idea either.
Bill Clinton also included handguns that weighed over 50 oz and also some semiautomatic shotguns, just in case you weren't aware. And any magazine over 10 rounds.
FWIW, here is the hearing for banning machineguns. It was crammed through illegally before it landed on Reagans desk. No special thanks to Democrat Charlie Rangel of New York (he's the one with the gavel making stuff up as he goes along).
Well, it looks like biden is trying to executive action a bunch of gun control BS.
I wonder if anyone here feels that taking guns away is not one of their primary goals now?
He called for the AFT (yes, he kept saying it wrong) to rewrite their regulations in an effort to ban certain guns. Like the shockwave for instance will likely be in the classification of easily concealed, especially if it has any kind of stabilizing brace on it. As well as any AR pistol or AK pistol.
Asked congress to push laws up to ban magazines that hold more than 10 rounds (which is most of them).
So, does anyone think that the democrats don't want to disarm the country?
Carbinemike, if you think this question is better suited for its' own topic for next month, let me know and I'll delete it.
The Democratic Party of today are the modern day version of the British of the 1760s and 1770s. They want to tax, tax, tax, curtail freedom of speech, ensure they remain in power (HR1), change the makeup of the supreme court to suit their needs, and oh by the way, control religion, actually denigrate Christianity, destroy all ideals of morality. Abortion on demand, 50+ genders according to some, and take away firearms.
Make no mistake, this gun control agenda is not about gun violence, it's about disarming the population.We are citizens now, without weapons we are subjects. Imagine how different China would be if the citizens were allowed access to firearms as we are.
For all intents and purposes the government controls the media now. If one is conservative, Republican, or support Donald Trump you are labeled as a domestic terrorist by most news outlets and the Democrats in DC. This is another form of intimidating and harassing political foes.
In the 1770s that was under the rule of a tyrant, the king of England. Today it is being engineered by the wizards behind the curtain.
And sometimes, from the question of the month, turns into the history lesson of the day.
What happened the last time that a government tried to take away guns in the USA?
Lemmings. Human beings have become lemmings. They will follow each other over the edge, because it’s what they have been training them selves to do for decades.
Only real question in my mind is whether they will take the rest of us down with them or not. It certainly looks as if they appear to try.
Separate names with a comma.