Total posts: 7,597
-->
@Public-Choice
Additionally, according to a 2016 DOJ survey, 89.7% of all criminals did not obtain their guns legally or through official channels. [2] so if gun control did anything, it wouldn't be so easy to buy a gun illegally.
Can you name any mass shootings where the weapons used were not obtained legally?
The Uvalde and Buffalo shootings? No
The Sandy Hook shooting? No, the 20 year old used his mother’s AR-15, killed her first, then went to the school and killed 20 children and 6 teachers.
The huge shooting in Las Vegas? No. 60 killed, 413 wounded.
You see, the problem here is the people who commit mass shootings aren’t typically criminals (or recognized as crazy) until AFTER they kill a bunch of people. So saying that criminals will always find a way to get guns ignores the fact that for mass shootings the people using the guns only became criminals after they committed the mass shooting.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
According to Crime Research
John Richard Lott Jr. (born May 8, 1958) is an American economist, political commentator, and gun rights advocate. Lott was formerly employed at various academic institutions and at the American Enterprise Institute conservative think tank. He is former president of the Crime Prevention Research Center, a nonprofit he founded in 2013. He worked in the Office of Justice Programs within the U.S. Department of Justice under the Donald Trump administration from October 2020 to January 2021. Lott holds a Ph.D. in economics from UCLA.
-Wikipedia
ARE YOU SURE YOU WANT TO GET YOUR INFORMATION FROM THIS GUY?
He has a PhD in economics.
He worked for President Donald Trump, albeit for only 4 months.
He wrote a paper claiming there was evidence of fraud in the 2020 absentee ballots in Georgia and Pennsylvania.[72] A 2021 PNAS study by political scientists at Stanford University and the University of Chicago rebutted Lott's paper as being not even remotely convincing, writing that his analysis was "entirely dependent on the completely arbitrary order in which pairs of precincts in other counties are entered in the dataset" and that his conclusions about voter fraud were "utterly baseless."[72][73][74]
Created:
Posted in:
Trump signed a bill into law changing the punishment for mishandling classified information from 1 year to 5 years in prison.
He then mishandled classified material, removing materials from their proper place and taking them to his private home at Mar-a-Lago.
Now his home has been raided after an informant told the government that Trump had classified material in his possession.
The National archives and Records Administration had already retrieved 15 boxes of material from Trump’s home.
Created:
-->
@Polytheist-Witch
Noticed that the two people arguing for gun control are ex-military with guns, who if ordered by the government to kill citizens they would obviously do so and want to be able to do it without citizens firing back.
People serving in the military swear an oath to the constitution, not a military or political leader. They are taught to not follow unlawful orders given by any superior. They are taught to refuse unlawful orders and then let the UCMJ sort out who was right in court.
If the US military was going to start killing citizens because the government ordered them and it was a lawful order, it wouldn’t matter how many AR-15s they had. They would lose badly and they would lose very quickly
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
First, I was not a corporal in the US Army. I was a Specialist in a position that put my rank (and position) above yours, Military Police Investigator under C.I.D.
An army specialist is a junior enlisted rank in the U.S. Army and is equivalent in pay to a corporal. The rank of specialist is an E-4 position that typically involves basic management duties as well as commanding lower-ranked soldiers.
- What Is a Specialist in the U.S. Army? | Indeed.com
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
“Intellectual cowardice” lol.
Your silly blog shows that you are at best a supporter of White Grievance, at worst you are a white supremacist. Do you belong to any militias like the 3
percenters?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Nope. Observation. Not all ad hominems are true ad hominems.
Lol, because it’s an observation that means it’s not a personal attack? That’s brilliant LCpl
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
You haven’t responded to any of my posts. This needs to be a two way conversation
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
How is it justified for liberal cities to complain? Doesn't that make them hypocrites?
Ok, catch up and respond to my other posts and I’ll respond to this one from you.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
How is it fair to let them steal jobs from poor people?
How many jobs did your ancestors steal from real Americans? What year was this?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
How much money r u willing to spend to get them assimilated?
Hmmm, how much money did the country spend assimilating your ancestors when they came here? And who invited them?
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
How much crime will you tolerate?
Statistically speaking, are immigrants (both legal and illegal) more or less likely to engage in criminal activity than American citizens?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
You guys are gonna be known as the 3 Trump morons on this site.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
If the fetus is retarted, it doesn’t matter; being retarted should not be a death sentence.
I don’t think I want to spend any time debating a guy who spells retarded as retarted. And you’re not suppose to use that term anymore. It’s an offensive term. The movie Something About Mary made that clear and that movie is from 1998.
That must be some college you are attending kid. Is it a Christian College by chance? In the south?
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TWS1405
Women do manipulative things to get pregnant. It's no different than the smash and dash concept.
Women reveal the reasons they’re secretly trying to get pregnant | The Sun
I was desperate for a baby so I ‘spurgled’ a man and tricked him into getting me pregnant – The Sun | The Sun
Find a guy who would get me pregnant and leave? - GirlsAskGuys
Yup, definitely enlisted. Only an enlisted guy would cite a British tabloid in a debate and think he has made a strong argument.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@TheUnderdog
Doing what he did should be illegal, even when it’s a zygote. You should hold the female to the same standard. If a guy isn’t allowed to ditch the zygote he chose to create, then neither is the female.
The fact you use the term zygote instead of fetus is very strange but I’ll take a shot at this.
It’s not illegal for a man to leave or abandon a woman when he gets her pregnant, but once the child is born he can definitely be required to support that child. The female can ditch the fetus if she lives in a normal state or travels to a normal state. She can even legally ditch the baby after it is born as long as she does it in a safe way prescribed by law.
So the entire premise of your post is faulty.
Created:
-->
@n8nrgim
Instead of catch and release, send them back. Asylum seekers should stay in their home country or Mexico. A wall would help, but there's less radical methods too.
Do you know why people usually seek asylum? Their lives are in danger. And your brilliant idea is for them to stay where they are in danger or let a much poorer nation deal with them. BTW, Who invited you to this country?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
when all else fails resort to ad hominem attack and rush to declare victory
Do you believe this TWS105 guy? He was a Corporal in the Army and then a bounty hunter and he thinks he’s Frasier Crane.
I’m guessing he “retired” at 45 either on disability or nobody would hire him.
He has a blog that shows how he suffers from White Fragility and status anxiety.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Intellectual coward - Intellectual coward - Dunning Kruger Effect - sophomoric banal retort. You lose Kruger Effect - sophomoric banal retort. You lose
lol. I can just imagine you hanging out at the E-Club using words like that.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Wow, impressive intellectual coward retort there twit.
Yes, Army. Military Police Corp. Airborne.Military Police Investigator under the Criminal Investigation Division. You know, like NCIS, but just the Army's version of it. Makes me far more intelligent than you, peon.
Oh good, you went back and added your resume. Well I’m sure the army had many brilliant criminal investigators like yourself in the ranks.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Awesome psychological projection and intellectual cowardice.You are the poster child for the Dunning Kruger Effect
Lol, you not only think you are a lawyer but a psychologist too. Boy the army really fucked up not sending you to OCS. What a loss to the country.
You’re like a Renaissance man.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Military-style means that the rifle is switchable between single-fire and automatic fire. AR-15s cannot do that.Note that a semi-automatic isn’t the same as an automatic. In a semi-automatic rifle, a shell is fired every time the trigger is squeezed. In an automatic, depressing the trigger results in one shell after another being fired for however long the trigger is depressed until there is no more ammunition left to fire.An AR-15 is not a military-style rifle because it has no automatic fire capability, which would be illegal.
No, that’s not true. Just because a weapon can’t select automatic doesn’t mean it’s not a military weapon. When I was in the Marines the M-16 only had a 3 round burst capability - no fully automatic capability. Armies fight in the semi-automatic mode more often than not. Having everyone use the auto function would not be practical. Armies would waste ammo and for soldiers all that ammo would be very heavy to carry.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Well, you can’t argue with nonsense. It’s just common sense! ( the noun kind)
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Can you please point to me where in the constitution, the federalist papers, or anywhere else the framers discussed this?It's called commonsense
I was asked where the framers discussed this. I replied, "It's called commonsense."In context, that description where "the framers discussed this" is within the framework of "commonsense."
Lol. So it was a commonsense discussion? Well if that’s how you used it then that would have been correct. If they had asked you what kind of discussion did the Founders have and you replied “ a commonsense discussion you would have been ok, but unfortunately LCpl, that isn’t what happened.
In your reply “It’s called commonsense” commonsense is a noun.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
There are over 335 million people in this country. Roughly 78 million are children. So, I was a little short with the 300 million reference. Still doesn't negate what I said as the proffered position.
Either way, children become of age and the government would still need more weapons. Especially when weapons fail or are damaged. Children or no children, a surplus is needed. It is required.
OMG, You definitely were enlisted in the army. Oh the brain power.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
An AR-15 is NOT a "military type" armament.
Really? Semi-automatic rifles in 5.56 mm with 30 round magazines are the typical weapon of armies today, including ours.
The need for a militia will always exist, ever see the movie Red Dawn? Yeah, it is a movie, but it CAN happen. It is NOT outside the realm of possibility. It is within the realm of probability.
I knew it. You’re a child fantasizing about being a hero. But you’re not as good looking and charismatic as Patrick Swayze.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
And for good reason. The government has worked, well, up at least until recently with the Biden-Harris Administration who is all but opening the front door of our country to illegals, China and Russia.
Well I knew you had to be a Trump supporting idiot. Stupidity is a prerequisite for being a Republican these days.
How was GDP growth in 2021? Did Trump ever have GDP growth like that in his 4 years?
Was the 8 trillion added to the National Debt in 4 years the most ever by a President?
How come Trump couldn’t kill the leader of Al-Qaeda? He had 4 years, Biden did it in 17 months.
And now he’s going to jail. You voted for a one term, twice impeached idiot who is going to jail.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
No it wasn’t. You lie. To be an adjective there would need to be a word after commonsense.
Example: The idiot I am talking to right now has no commonsense ideas. The noun is ideas. The adjective describing the ideas is commonsense.
Get it LCpl?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Strawman fallacy. Nowhere did I say "every man, woman and child in this country could be considered part of a militia..." That statement by YOU, not me, is what is truly "dumb."Also, you were the one who mentioned something about PA stockpiling weapons. Now when I bring it up to a more present-day value, you call it stupid. #hypocrite.
So it was a coincidence that you said the government would need 300 million weapons stockpiled to supply the militia and we are a country of just over 300 million people? And if you are comparing a value (number) today to colonial times then you are suggesting we would need a weapon for every man, woman, and child. Idiot!
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
When used as a noun, as you were doing, it is two words.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
I’m reasonably confident that it’s in one of the briefs for the case.
By reasonably confident you mean you have no idea.
Sure. Key idea is federal government. Heller came because of DC laws. Chicago v McDonald incorporated it to the states.Anyways, it’s clear to me you do not know, or care about American history or the constitution enough to talk about the 2nd Amendment. I was not going to post, but your idiocy made me. I luckily have better things to do. Good bye.
Ha, he didn’t say only Federal government restrictions- you’re such a dummy, you don’t know what you don’t know. See the link below for a summary of the Heller decision.
The Second Amendment right is not absolute and a wide range of gun control laws remain “presumptively lawful,” according to the Court. These include laws that (1) prohibit carrying concealed weapons, (2) prohibit gun possession by felons or the mentally retarded, (3) prohibit carrying firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, (4) impose “conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms,” (5) prohibit “dangerous and unusual weapons,” and (6) regulate firearm storage to prevent accidents. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion. He was joined by Justices Alito, Kennedy, Roberts, and Thomas.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
But the fundamentals remained the same. Guns weren’t owned by the government, they were owned by the people. Hell there were private cannon ships. It was obviously intended to encompass that.
You realize in Colonial times the guns used by the militia were provided and owned by the government, right?
Cannon ships? Lol. You mean Privateers? Those were authorized by the government during the War for Independence. That’s what they were referring to in the constitution as Letters of Marque which they banned states from doing when the country was formed.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
How about you talk to every family that has lost a member due to handgun violence and explain to them that they’re irrelevant. It’s a two way street dude. Emotional arguments don’t work.
I’m as emotional as geometry and you have no desire to ban handguns or even make sensible changes like universal background checks. Dude. So adult-like.
Seniors voted heavily for Trump. Young people voted heavily for Biden. Try again.
So you are a young person who votes like a brain-dead, racist senior citizen. Congratulations! Did Trump win the election in a landslide like he said?
Didn’t Trump dodge the draft for the Viet Nam war by pretending to have a bone spur and getting a phony doctors note from one of his Dad’s tenants? Irrelevant.
Only irrelevant to idiots like yourself. Faking a disability to avoid military service and then being elected as Commander and Chief of the Armed Forces is a disgrace to this country.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
The names may have changed, but Article I Section 8 of the Constitution requires passage every 2 years for an army. Maybe read the Constitution?
May have changed? Or definitely the National Defense Authorization Act was not part of the constitution? It was passed in 1961. And they don’t do it every two years. They do 2 bills each year and your attempt to define how Congress funds the military has failed. The reason you failed is probably because you’re just a stupid kid.
The National Defense Authorization Act (NDAA) is the name for each of a series of United States federal laws specifying the annual budget and expenditures of the U.S. Department of Defense. The first NDAA was passed in 1961.[1][2] The U.S. Congress oversees the defense budget primarily through two yearly bills: the National Defense Authorization Act and defense appropriations bills. The authorization bill is the jurisdiction of the Senate Armed Services Committee and House Armed Services Committee and determines the agencies responsible for defense, establishes recommended funding levels, and sets the policies under which money will be spent.[3] The appropriations bill provides funds.
Relatively, yes. Any objective individual could see handguns are a bigger problem than “assault weapons.”
You are the only person saying that mass shootings with assault weapons is a minor problem in this country. But then again, you’re just a kid.
Yes, more people are shot with handguns every year than assault weapons. There are over 300 million guns in this country. Only 20 million are assault rifles.
When we have 600 million guns in this country and 300 million are assault rifles the number of deaths they are involved in will likely surpass handguns just using basic statistical projections. Is that what you are waiting for before taking action?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
There’s a wonderful reason and that’s prevent the government from tyranny. We’ve seen throughout history what tyrannical regimes have done: take guns from their citizens.
This statement coming from you is kind of ironic considering you support Donald Trump and he is the closet thing to a tyrant we’ve ever had.
Or it’s a necessity to take down feral pigs, go hunting. I’ve seen an AR used for home protection before. You’ve probably never heard of it because the media doesn’t bother talking about the good actions.
Oh boy, shooting wild pigs and used as overkill in home defense once or twice a year. That’s worth hundreds of mass shootings every year. What a dummy.
Hunting with an AR-15 is like fishing with dynamite. Pretty sad.
Because you’re claiming that the Founders didn’t want standing armies. If they didn’t, they wouldn’t allow for it to happen in the Constitution.
Everyone who knows about the Founders fear of standing armies in peace time. You even cited a comment that I pointed out yesterday illustrating that fact
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Society can function just as fine with walking and horse drawn carriages. It had been happening for decades. You can’t blame a tool for the mistakes of the operator. Technology is neither good nor evil.
It appears that you are a tool. How big was the economy in this country when we had horse drawn carriages? Is that what you suggest we return to?
I proved that is false based on the sentiments in colonial America, specifically the PA DoR. Try again.
No, you did not prove anything other than you have a childlike mind.
And how many OTC drugs are available? How many knives are available? How many poisons are available? There are far more of those lying around. If you banned guns, deaths would still happen because news flash: there’s more than one way to commit suicide.
People who treat depression and work in suicide prevention disagree with you. On the other hand, you have zero credentials as a young student who hasn’t accomplished anything yet in life.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
The issue is present day, not colonial days. Does the US Government possess a stockpile of 300 million weapons that would be reserved for a federal (or state) militia? No. Hence the right of the people to keep and bear arms.
That is so dumb it boggles the mind. Now you think every man, woman and child in this country could be considered part of a militia that doesn’t even exist.
Why is it so hard for you to understand what the Founding Fathers were doing when they codified militias in the constitution and why they added the Second Amendment when the first Congress met. Why can’t you understand both concepts are now obsolete and moot. We no longer rely on militias for National Defense or to enforce the law. The fear of standing armies in peace time that the Framers had in the late 1700s has long passed and was likely irrational even back then considering the new type of government they had constructed with the constitution. A right to bear arms, especially military type arms, for militias that no longer exist is obviously not necessary or appropriate. That’s why the 2A needs to be revised, actually repealed and replaced with something that makes sense in the 21st century. But because of idiots like you, it’s very difficult for Congress to even consider an amendment.
I am a gun owner and I support private ownership of most types of guns within reason for hunting and self-defense, but what we are doing right now is madness.
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
Commonsense can be written as one or two words, depending on the context in which it is being used, genius! *rollingeyes*Ya genius, when you use it as an adjective like commonsense solutions. That’s not what you did. You used it as a noun.
Wrong again genius- see definitions below. In your context it was a noun, so always TWO words. “really rolling eyes”
You must be a republican, not only do you seem to enjoy being wrong, instead of checking your error you choose to double down.
When 'common sense' is used as a noun, it is spelt as two words. As an adjective, it may be one word. Some people choose to use a hyphen, instead — 'common-sense'.
Definition of common sense
: sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts
So far, I've had the common sense not to tweet anything ghastly.
— James Poniewozik
The poker players learns that sometimes both science and common sense are wrong. There is such a thing as absolute premonition of cards, a rock bottom surety of what will happen next.
— David Mamet
With tsunamis, it may seem only common sense to Earth scientists to run away from (and not toward) the water when the sea is drawn rapidly down and away from the beach as a tsunami approaches. But that response is counterintuitive for most people.
— Thomas C. Pierson
Merriam-Webster Dictionary
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
My citation of the PA DoR was in response to your notion that the concept of firearms for the use of self defense was made out of thin air in DC v Heller. It clearly was not. The sentiment was found in colonial America as well. Funny enough, the same representatives that wrote the PA DoR negotiated and voted on the Federsl constitution
Not the concept, but the constitutional right was made out of thin air. It simply isn’t there in the words of the Second Amendment the way it appears to be in the PA version. Did the Supreme Court cite the PA DOR in the Heller decision? I’m guessing no and I’m pretty sure you have no idea. Did you also know that justice Scalia wrote in Heller the Federal Government absolutely has the right to restrict which type of guns citizens can own and the places they can be carried?
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
That’s a red herring. Society has become soft. If our ancestors that found in WWI and WWII looked at us right now they’d laugh because of all the pronouns and deterioration of nuclear families.
Tell me what makes you so much tougher than the rest of Society.
They’d definitely laugh at the idiots who voted for Trump. Guys like you.
Didn’t Trump dodge the draft for the Viet Nam war by pretending to have a bone spur and getting a phony doctors note from one of his Dad’s tenants?
What a real man he is. Right? You are so wise to support him. He was going to make America white again!
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If you cared about gun deaths, you’d advocate for the banning of handguns since they form a vast majority of gun deaths. From my perspective it’s an emotional argument, not an argument grounded in facts. If your goal was to protect lives you’d be arguing to ban all or guns or at the very least handguns, not the relatively minor problem of “assault weapons” (which don’t even have a definition lol).
They form a vast majority? Is that right? Assault weapons are a minor problem? Is that right? You should tell that to the parents of all those children. You probably thought Covid was a minor problem too. Lol You’re so funny, like the village idiot speaking at the town council.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Irrelevant and frankly a misinterpretation of well-regulated. Well-regulated during colonial American meant well-maintained. I digress though. There are various lawful militias.
Well it’s easy to see why you are a Trump supporter. You are not bright. Well regulated was explained in the Federalist Papers by Alexander Hamilton.
It meant organized, standardized, trained, with officers chosen by the states they come from. And they were equipped by the Federal Government and fell under their control. What militias exists today, and if you say the National Guard I’m going to laugh at you.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
they could’ve said that, yet they purposefully wrote the ability of the government to maintain a standing army for 2 years at a time. There’s a reason why the government is forced to pass a National Defense Authorization Act every fiscal year. They are constitutionally required to replenish funds every 2 years.
This is nonsense. Do you think the “National Defense Authorization Act” was a law made by the Constitution in 1787? That really doesn’t sound like language from the Constitution.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Sure. He also had the option of asking Congress to raise an army for him, which you conveniently omitted. Whether they would’ve agreed or not is a different question.
I omitted it because it is a ridiculous idea. How long would it take to raise an army, train and equip it? How long should these enlistments be for to put down the rebellion? And why do you think this is a valid point worth making here?
Created:
-->
@TWS1405
It's called commonsense. One simply cannot gather the town's citizens and ask them to join the militia if they have no weapons to fight with.The government doesn't have a mass stockpile of 100, 200 or even 300 million weapons to just give to citizens they call to serve in the militia, now does it!
You are the last person who should be exclaiming the virtues of common sense (two words not one as you wrote) since you appear to be lacking in this department.
If you knew history, visited a museum or two, gone to some historical sites you would know that the arms for militias were most commonly provided by the government in colonial times. The government absolutely did have stockpiles of arms to give (issue) to citizens who were part of a WELL REGULATED MILITIA.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
It takes longer to go buy a gun than it takes to overdose, hang yourself, slit your wrists, etc. Either way, a gun is a tool, not inherently good or bad. The user is responsible. It’s just like Tylenol. It can be good, but it can also be bad.
Well they don’t have to go buy a gun because there is likely one lying around nearby, either it’s their own gun or a family member or a friend. All those other things you mentioned are less likely to result in the suicidal person being successful in taking their own life. But my argument is to ban assault weapons because they are so deadly in mass shootings and there is no good reason for an ordinary citizen to own one. Preventing suicides in America is another battle for another day. If we don’t have the common sense to ban assault weapons then we deserve what we get. A society where crazy people, of all ages take a weapon of war and indiscriminately gun down a bunch of innocent people, including children. All for what, so some loser can feel like a man with a big dick because the rest of his life is so pathetic.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Car accidents account for most deaths of teenagers. Should cars be banned? As I stated, there is historical pretext for Heller.
We need cars for our society to function. We definitely do not need assault weapons and as I said there is nothing in the 2A that guarantees an individual right to own assault weapons. It’s idiotic and it’s definitely not what the Founders intended as I have shown before.
Maybe. Maybe not. But they definitely need it in case of governmental tyranny. If the founders didn’t own guns themselves, you think they would’ve been able to fight the British?
No, definitely not. If you need a 30 round magazine to defend yourself you must be a really poor shooter. I suggest practice. Most of the Founders didn’t fight in the War and the guns they had to start the Revolution were provided by the British Crown, the very government they were rebelling against. We had decades where nobody had assault weapons. They just came into common use in the last three decades. When I was a kid in the 70s it was unheard of to own such a weapon yet somehow nobody cared even though the M-16 was being used in the last years of Vietnam.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Suicides aren’t a gun problem, they’re a mental health problem. Fix the depression issues, not guns.
That’s also incorrect. Suicide is often an impulse that will pass if given enough time. An hour, a day, a bad night. If the person in crisis could get past that brief period of extreme sadness or loss of hope or will to live, without accessing a gun, they would likely go on to live - with the right support. But having guns around just reduces the time and opportunity a person has to get the treatment or support they desperately need.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
If you’re denying militias don’t exist, you’re wrong.
Oh really? You mean like the Proud Boys and the 3 Percenters? Those idiots are not a Well Regulated Militia.
A large portion of which were because of suicide, which is a mental health problem.
Yes, that’s what I wrote earlier. But to not ban assault weapons because it won’t do much to prevent suicides is not the kind of thing reasonable adults do.
And the only time Republicans say they care about mental health is when they are using it to deflect away the need for sensible gun laws.
Created:
-->
@ILikePie5
Which he had the right to do. To declare war and raise a federal army, Congressional approval was needed. Which sounds easier to you? This action has no reflection on the 2nd Amendment
Washington leading several state militias against the Whiskey Rebellion shows how the state militias were controlled by the Federal government. That was my point and why I included that historical fact.
This is demonstrably false. For example the PA Declaration of Rights in 1776 states this: “That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state; and as standing armies in the time of peace are dangerous to liberty, they ought not to be kept up; And that the military should be kept under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power.
The 2A is part of the Federal Constitution. How is the PA Declaration of Rights relevant? However, your quote from the PA Constitution does offer support that the Founders didn’t want a standing army in Peace time which you seemed skeptical of in an earlier comment.
Created: