President Biden Repeats False Claim about the Second Amendment

  

Category:  News & Politics

Via:  vic-eldred  •  one month ago  •  149 comments

By:   JONATHAN TURLEY

President Biden Repeats False Claim about the Second Amendment
President Joe Biden on Wednesday repeated a claim about the Second Amendment that some of us have repeatedly challenged as untrue. In asserting that "the Second Amendment is not absolute," President Biden repeated his claim that certain weapons were prohibited at the time that the Second Amendment was ratified. That is simply untrue. The statement…

S E E D E D   C O N T E N T



President Joe Biden on Wednesday repeated a claim about the Second Amendment that some of us have repeatedly challenged as untrue. In asserting that "the Second Amendment is not absolute," President Biden repeated his claim that certain weapons were prohibited at the time that the Second Amendment was ratified. That is simply untrue.

The statement that the Second Amendment is not absolute is certainly true. There are laws that can be crafted within the confines set out under controlling Supreme Court precedent. However, as discussed in a column, President Biden continues to ignore those constitutional limitations in blaming the gun lobby and political opponents for these deaths.

President Biden also has repeated his claim that certain weapons were banned at the time of the ratification of the Second Amendment.

Previously, Biden declared:


"And I might add: The Second Amendment, from the day it was passed, limited the type of people who could own a gun and what type of weapon you could own. You couldn't buy a cannon."

This week, President Biden repeated a false claim that many of us have corrected in the past.

When he was announcing new rules for so-called "ghost guns" and other measures, President Biden renewed his false claim that early Americans could not buy a cannon.


"By the way — it's going to sound bizarre — I support the Second Amendment. But from the very beginning the Second Amendment didn't say you could own any gun you want, as big as you want. You couldn't buy a cannon, when in fact the Second Amendment passed."

It does sound bizarre because it is factually and legally untrue. I have received calls for media for years about this claim and it does not improve by repetition. Even the Washington Post has declared Biden's understanding of the Second Amendment to be false.

Yet, this week, President Biden remained undeterred and uninformed: "The Second Amendment is not absolute. When it was passed you couldn't own a cannon, you couldn't own certain kinds of weapons. There's just always been limitations."

Once again, there were no federal laws barring cannon ownership when the Second Amendment was enacted. Gun laws remained local matters and I do not know of any bans on cannons or other gun types until much later in our history. Early local laws did control concealed weapons, though concealed cannons were not part of those ordinances.

Indeed, the Constitution itself supports private cannon ownership in the case of privateers. Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 allows Congress to "grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal." That allowed private parties to privateer on the high seas with . . . cannons. (Recently some members of Congress wanted to issues such letters of Marque again to enlist privateers in the fight against Russia).

As with the failure to acknowledge the limitations on the range of legislative options due to Second Amendment protections, President Biden is undermining efforts to reach common ground with this repeated false claim. If we are going to reach what the President calls "commonsense" responses to this massacres, we must start from a common understanding of the constitutional and historical foundations for such reforms.


05282015_66951-e1532723116454.jpg?fit=297%2C300&ssl=1
Jonathan Turley


Article is LOCKED by moderator [Split Personality]
[]
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1  seeder  Vic Eldred    one month ago

Another 4 Pinocchio's for the ever confused Biden.

pinocchio_4.jpg?uuid=zmHlfEniEeCn1tWe_T6KGA

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1  Ozzwald  replied to  Vic Eldred @1    one month ago
Another 4 Pinocchio's for the ever confused Biden.

He is correct.  If you doubt it, go try to buy a fully automatic machine gun, or bazooka (bigger gun).

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    one month ago

Please do point out where in the Second Amendment it prohibits certain weapons from being owned by citizens.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    one month ago

Not just that, can he point out to where in federal code it is illegal to purchase either one?  Both are legal as per federal code.  Of course the care and feeding of such weapons is more than I want to pay for so I won't have either one, but the simple fact is that once again President Biden was just wrong.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.3  Ozzwald  replied to  Texan1211 @1.1.1    one month ago
Please do point out where in the Second Amendment it prohibits certain weapons from being owned by citizens.

Go buy one, see how that works for you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
1.1.4  Texan1211  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.3    one month ago

I don't see in your comment anything even close to pointing out where in the 2nd Amendment any type of ownership of weapons is prohibited.

Try again.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.5  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    one month ago
go try to buy a fully automatic machine gun, or bazooka (bigger gun).

If I'm an Importer, manufacturer, dealer, and collector of firearms, ammunition, validly licensed under the laws of the United States or the State of North Carolina, while lawfully engaged in activities authorized under their licenses I can purchase a fully automatic weapon.  

bazooka 

That a pretty broad, generic term for a weapon?  Is it like the M153? AT4? FIM-92? FGM148?  You need to be specific.  Otherwise is really shows you don't know what you are talking about.

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1.1.6  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1    one month ago
If you doubt it, go try to buy a fully automatic machine gun, or bazooka (bigger gun).

People do it all the time. It only takes getting a Lisc. First (Class 3) !

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
1.1.7  Thomas  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.6    one month ago
It only takes getting a Lisc. First (Class 3) !

Exactly what should be done for firearms in general. 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1.1.8  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Thomas @1.1.7    one month ago
Exactly what should be done for firearms in general. 

How would that STOP a nut whose gonna kill someone ?

I have a C&R Lisc. in order to buy unlimited Old Antique type Guns without going through a Gun Shop or an FFL Lisc. Person.

Can't sell 'em, but I can collect 'em.

They didn't ask if I could shoot in the application.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
1.1.9  Right Down the Center  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.3    one month ago

Your usual projection, deflection, and denial.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
1.1.10  bugsy  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.5    one month ago
you don't know what you are talking about

It's this

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
1.1.11  Thomas  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.8    one month ago

All firearms and persons who own them should be registered and licensed with periodic renewals and training required. This would stop some of the guns from getting into the wrong hands. Also, stricter rules regarding the types of gun that a private citizen can buy should be related to the class of license. 

If somebody is going to kill someone else and they are bound and determined to do so, there is not much that anyone can do if the person keeps quiet about his plans. Other countries do not seem to have as bad of a problem with gun violence. Ask yourself why.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.12  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @1.1.11    one month ago

As long as the present gun laws are not prosecuted, none of it will matter

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.1.13  Snuffy  replied to  Thomas @1.1.11    one month ago

Current federal law, I believe, prohibits the creation of a registry so the law would need to be changed.  Personally I don't like the idea of a registry and I have some serious doubts to how complete it would be.  For example anybody who was handed down guns from grandparents, those guns are not registered anywhere and for all intents and purposes are invisible to the federal government unless the owner steps forward with the information.

As to training, I would like to see a "life lessons" class in every year of school from kindergarten thru 12th grade that would include such topics as (age appropriate) gun safety.  Too many people get their entire training on how to handle a gun from the Hollywood movies they watch.  I would also like this class to include how to see the warning signs and indicate it's the correct and proper thing to reach out to a person who might be showing those warning signs and to also reach out to authorities in an effort to get help for the person who needs it.  For the Texas shooting it sure seems evident that this kid was bullied and abused for almost his entire life and nobody did or said anything that might have prevented him from going off the deep end.

As for licensing, only if it's a federal license that is recognized in all states.  But then that would remove some states rights to manage guns as they see fit so that would be an interesting fight in the courts.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.14  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.5    one month ago
If I'm an Importer, manufacturer, dealer, and collector of firearms, ammunition, validly licensed under the laws of the United States or the State of North Carolina, while lawfully engaged in activities authorized under their licenses I can purchase a fully automatic weapon.

So you are specially licensed in order to own a fully automatic weapon.  Now which side of the aisle like to scream about the 2nd Amendment when simple registration is suggested?  How would they feel about requiring special licensing to simply own a firearm?

You need to be specific.

No I don't.  It doesn't matter the model, the example still pertains.

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.15  Ozzwald  replied to  Thomas @1.1.7    one month ago

Exactly what should be done for firearms in general. 

Finally someone is seeing my point.  THANK YOU THOMAS.!!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
1.1.16  Dulay  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.3    one month ago

All they need to do is read Heller to recognize that even their go to guy, Scalia, clearly believed that there were 'undoubtedly' limits to a right to person's right to bear arms. Of course, there's that reading thingy that seems to elude them. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.17  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.14    one month ago

Spin it how ever you want.  People can still purchase fully automatic weapons and weapons you so ignorantly call "bazookas". 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1.1.18  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Thomas @1.1.11    one month ago
All firearms and persons who own them should be registered and licensed with periodic renewals and training required. This would stop some of the guns from getting into the wrong hands.

That will prevent Theft ?

Also, stricter rules regarding the types of gun that a private citizen can buy should be related to the class of license. 

There are already Lisc. "Classes".

A CC cerification already requires a course one has to take to get one, with a renewal process required every 2 to 5 years.

How would you reword what's already required as to gun carry, or a simple thing as just "Owning" a gun ?  

Also....

What would you "Change" for someone like me that has a C&R (Curio and Relic) Permit, that purchases 50 year or older guns as a collector. Should I have to get "Another Type" permit to actually own those type guns ?

What if someone breaks into my home and steals a gun or two of mine ? Should there be a law that says you can't steal guns without a special "Lisc./Permit", or they are going to be prosecuted ?

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
1.1.19  Thomas  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.18    one month ago

Everyone who owns a gun should be licensed. All firearms should be registered. That is the starting line, not the finish line.

Gun buybacks should be run in every municipality. That would decrease the surplus of guns available.

The guns that you have as on your C&R license should be rendered inoperable.  

We have got to do something differently than we are doing now. Other countries do not have this serious of a problem with shootings because they have less firearms per person.

I know history and I know why the second ammendment is in the Bill of Rights. I would go so far as to rewrite the ammendment to clarify the 3 sentence fragments that are crammed together.  

 
 
 
Ozzwald
Professor Quiet
1.1.21  Ozzwald  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @1.1.17    one month ago
People can still purchase fully automatic weapons and weapons you so ignorantly call "bazookas".

No they cannot.  Only "special" people can who are fully licensed and background checked.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
1.1.22  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.21    one month ago

Spin it however you want.  Fact of the matter is people can purchase the weapons.  Stomp your feet and cry about it.  I don't care. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
1.1.23  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Ozzwald @1.1.21    one month ago
Only "special" people can who are fully licensed and background checked.

I don’t know about fully licensed and background checked, but you’ll always be “special” to me, Ozzwald.

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
1.1.24  Thomas  replied to  Vic Eldred @1.1.12    one month ago

For once we seemingly agree. 

Would you support registration and licensing of all firearms and owners thereof? 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1.1.25  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Thomas @1.1.19    one month ago
Everyone who owns a gun should be licensed. All firearms should be registered. That is the starting line, not the finish line.

All FFL Lisc. Holders MUST keep a record of EVERY Serial number on any "LEGAL" gun they are going to sell. It's REQUIRED by the FEDS !

EVERY person wishing to purchase a LEGAL gun must go through a background check and a waiting period before they can take the gun home.

Now tell me, instead of how you want to hinder and/or penalize a "LEGAL" persons right to purchase a gun, how you are going to stop the "Illegal" crowd from having a gun, that ISN'T ALREADY on the "LAW" books

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
1.1.26  Thomas  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.13    one month ago
For example anybody who was handed down guns from grandparents, those guns are not registered anywhere and for all intents and purposes are invisible to the federal government unless the owner steps forward with the information.

Every gun and gun owner should be licensed and registered.  If there are people out there who wish to not comply, then they should be subject to prosecution.  

This problem of gun violence has been used as a wedge issue for too long.  We need to recognize that the solution to this problem is not a rights issue.  I don't want to take anyone's guns, but I do want to see the violence associated with firearms lessened by a great deal.  The choice is between doing something to at least try and address the problem rather than pretending that it is all beyond our control or simply blaming "crazy people " while not addressing the other facets of the issue will not work. (Sorry,  that sentence is arglebarf, but I am typing this on my phone and think you get the idea)

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
1.1.27  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  Thomas @1.1.26    one month ago
If there are people out there who wish to not comply, then they should be subject to prosecution.  

It's already "AGAINST THE LAW" to use a gun in the perpetration of a crime. How is requiring EVERYONE to get a Lisc. to own a gun, gonna boost that "ALREADY ON THE BOOKS AGAINST THE LAW thingy ? 

All the NUT has to be able to do is fill out an Application, maybe sit down for a class for a few hours, withstand a background check.....and POOOOF.... instant Lisc.

Now.... what Stopped that same Nut that could probably pass everything required, from carrying out a massacre against folks. The Lisc. ?

The Fucking Nuts sat down and learned how to Fly a commercial Jet, and Flew them right into the towers and ........ POOF.....over 3 thousand folks MURDERED.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.1.28  Snuffy  replied to  Thomas @1.1.26    one month ago
Every gun and gun owner should be licensed and registered. 

I disagree.  And current federal law prohibits the creation of a gun registry so that law would need to be changed before you can begin.  

This problem of gun violence has been used as a wedge issue for too long.  We need to recognize that the solution to this problem is not a rights issue.  I don't want to take anyone's guns, but I do want to see the violence associated with firearms lessened by a great deal.  The choice is between doing something to at least try and address the problem rather than pretending that it is all beyond our control or simply blaming "crazy people " while not addressing the other facets of the issue will not work. (Sorry,  that sentence is arglebarf, but I am typing this on my phone and think you get the idea)

No,  I believe it if was truly a gun issue then we would have daily death counts in the tens of thousands due to the vast number of guns in public hands.  

We need to do the harder work to reduce the possibility of these kinds of events.  This kid in Texas, he was bullied almost his entire life.  He self-harmed (cut his own face) and it seems that a lot of people all around him knew he wasn't ok but they did nothing.  The schools did nothing to stop the bullying.  Additionally, the school in Texas was not following the rules to "harden" the site, this kid walked in thru an open door that a teacher propped open.  

No action can completely prevent this from happening but changes can be made to reduce the possibility.  But the simple act of registering every gun and gun owner would do nothing to prevent this tragedy from happening.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
1.1.29  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Thomas @1.1.24    one month ago

Of course

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
1.1.30  Snuffy  replied to  Thomas @1.1.26    one month ago
Every gun and gun owner should be licensed and registered. 

Thought of another question as I was walking thru the grocery store to get ready for the weekend.

Why do you want every gun and gun owner registered?  What is to be gained from doing this?  The authorities can already find out who purchased a gun when it turns up in a crime so there is no huge savings there.  What will having guns registered for in your opinion?

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
1.1.31  Thomas  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.30    one month ago

Because when it turns up in a crime it's too late.  But...

If we know where they are supposed to be, we have an idea of where they came from, which gives information on the way that guns spread after they are stolen and some idea of how to interdict the flow of illegal weapons.  

Regardless of all of these contingencies, it is incumbent upon us to do something besides flap our lips at the problem and say that our hearts and prayers go out to those affected by the violence.  

 
 
 
Thomas
Sophomore Guide
1.1.32  Thomas  replied to  magicschoolbusdropout @1.1.27    one month ago

So how would you deal with the proliferation of firearms?  So far,  the only remedy that I have seen from you is crocodile tears for the victims.  

Perhaps I missed something?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
1.1.33  TᵢG  replied to  Thomas @1.1.32    one month ago

Or, more specifically, the proliferation of nuts with firearms.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
1.1.34  Ender  replied to  Thomas @1.1.32    one month ago
So how would you deal with the proliferation of firearms?

I don't think they want to.

Any idea is shot down. Hell they were all over me just for saying I don't think an 18 yr old kid should be able to walk in and buy 600 rounds of ammo.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2  JohnRussell    one month ago

I'll make it short and sweet for you Vic.  Biden may have been a tad inarticulate, but he is not wrong. No less than your god Antonin Scalia agreed. 

www.huffpost.com   /entry/antonin-scalia-guns_n_1715969

Antonin Scalia: There Are 'Undoubtedly' Limits To A Person's Right To Carry Guns (VIDEO)

3-3 minutes   7/29/2012


WASHINGTON -- Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia said Sunday that there are "undoubtedly" limits to a person's right to bear arms under the Second Amendment, but that future court cases will have to decide where to draw the line.

During an appearance on " Fox News   Sunday," Scalia was asked whether lawmakers have the right to ban high-capacity gun magazines without violating a person's constitutional right to bear arms. The question comes less than two weeks after the Colorado shooting massacre that left 12 dead and dozens more injured -- and at a time when neither President   Barack Obama   nor Congress   appear willing to touch the issue of gun control .

"We'll see," Scalia said, suggesting that future court cases will determine what limitations on modern-day weapons are permissible.

"Some undoubtedly are [permissible] because there were some that were acknowledged at the time" the Constitution was written, Scalia said.

He cited a practice from that era known as "frighting," where people "carried around a really horrible weapon just to scare people, like a head axe or something. That was, I believe, a misdemeanor."

“So yes, there are some limitations that can be imposed," Scalia said. "What they are will depend on what the society understood were reasonable limitations at the time."
 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago

Let's keep it short and sweet.

Let's get the lunatics back into the asylums!

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago

Then stop seeding articles that dont make your point. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
2.1.2  Tessylo  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago

That's so many republicans/alleged conservatives/today's gqp - too many lunatics to count and over  run the asylums

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.3  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    one month ago

But they do. Making good people harmless won't stop making deranged people dangerous.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.4  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.1    one month ago

May I suggest you actually read the seeded article before  you comment.  The article doesn't say that limitations cannot be imposed, that's not where Biden was wrong.  Where is was wrong in his speech (actually he said it several times) was that some weapons (like cannons) were banned when the 2nd Amendment was written.  That's 100% false.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.1.5  JohnRussell  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.4    one month ago

Like I said, he was inarticulate. His point was that the second amendment is not a complete go ahead for any weapon under the sun.  Guns can be regulated, that was his point. If you cant see that, then, too bad. 

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.6  Snuffy  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.5    one month ago

keep digging buddy...   If Trump had made that speech you would have been all over him for lying about cannons being banned.  But here  you forgive it and find excuses for what he said.  All I can do is laugh out loud at  you.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.4    one month ago
Where is was wrong in his speech (actually he said it several times) was that some weapons (like cannons) were banned when the 2nd Amendment was written.  That's 100% false.

Have you noticed that almost every time Biden talks, someone or the WH has to "explain" what he really meant?

And when did "inarticulate" become a substitute for the word "lie"?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
2.1.8  Snuffy  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    one month ago
And when did "inarticulate" become a substitute for the word "lie"?

Noon EST on Jan 20, 2021.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.9  Texan1211  replied to  Snuffy @2.1.8    one month ago

jrSmiley_81_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.1.10  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    one month ago
And when did "inarticulate" become a substitute for the word "lie"?

When Biden took office.  

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.1.11  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.5    one month ago
he was inarticulate

He was also inarticulate when he said we would get militarily involved if China tried to move on Taiwan.  China did not seem to give him a pass for being inarticulate like you are.  He was inarticulate when he said Putin must go.  Russia did not seem to give him a pass for being inarticulate like you are.  At what point does he go from being inarticulate to being dangerous in your eyes, when the bombs start dropping on US soil?

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.1.12  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @2.1.5    one month ago

John, the big thing you refuse to concede because it does not match your liberal worldview is that at the time the 2nd Amendment was introduced there were in fact no limits on what firearm people could obtain. Your argument regarding obtaining cannons is flawed for two reasons. 1. Cannons were large and expensive to manufacture and  purchase by the average person. 2. In those times, the ordinary average citizen had no use for or desire to own a full size cannon, but they were not prohibited. 

You really should do yourself a favor and bone up on early American history.

 
 
 
gooseisback
Freshman Silent
2.1.13  gooseisback  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.7    one month ago
Have you noticed that almost every time Biden talks, someone or the WH has to "explain" what he really meant?

Clean up on aisle 2.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.14  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1    one month ago
Let's keep it short and sweet. Let's get the lunatics back into the asylums!

Tell me that it's THAT simple Vic. Since Reagan, mental health institutions have dwindled down to to the point where we don't have nearly enough to service those in need. 

Add that to the fact that the GOP has defunded mental health programs. Oh, and they had a fucking fit when it was suggested that those in the military with PTSD should be disarmed. Remember that? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.15  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.3    one month ago

They are 'law abiding', until they aren't Vic. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.16  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @2.1.14    one month ago
Add that to the fact that the GOP has defunded mental health programs.

Exactly, Dems have been powerless since Reagan.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.17  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.1.14    one month ago

I don't care who you want to blame. The fact is that we were a lot better off separating these people from society.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.18  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Dulay @2.1.15    one month ago

Actually these lunatics have a history. In the most recent case this kid shot his grandmother before driving to the Robb Elementary school. Were police notified by the family of where he was going or the way he was acting?

"Friends and relatives have said that Ramos was bullied, cut his own face, fired a BB gun at random people and egged cars in the years leading up to the deadly attack.

Family and friends have also said that he had a difficult home life, that he was bullied over a childhood speech impediment and that he lashed out violently towards both friends and strangers – both recently and over the years."


 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.19  Ronin2  replied to  Right Down the Center @2.1.11    one month ago
At what point does he go from being inarticulate to being dangerous in your eyes, when the bombs start dropping on US soil?

They will blame Trump and Republicans for undermining Biden; and making him look weak to the rest of the world with their dying breaths.

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.1.20  Ronin2  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.18    one month ago

Family and friends should also have intervened and made sure he received the help he so desperately needed.

Cut his own face? That right there screams help! How could someone not be called- even if it was just a teenage hotline for advice? Get someone with some kind of background involved; so that if nothing else the problem gets passed along further up the food chain.

 
 
 
Vic Eldred
Professor Principal
2.1.21  seeder  Vic Eldred  replied to  Ronin2 @2.1.20    one month ago

He obviously needed treatment. I prefer he'd be in confinement.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.22  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.16    one month ago

Exactly = not at all. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.23  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.17    one month ago
I don't care who you want to blame.

I didn't 'blame' anyone, I merely stated FACTS which you didn't refute. 

The fact is that we were a lot better off separating these people from society.

To WHERE Vic?

Since Reagan, prisons are being used as mental institutions. No treatment, just incarceration. The US already has the highest per capita incarcerated rate in the world. There are over 2 million in jail in the US and most of our jails are overpopulated. It's estimated that 20% of the adult population of the US has some form of mental illness. That's over 60,000,000 mentally ill living in America. 

Are you ready to pony up a BIG chunk in taxes to pay for the policing, courts and prisons needed to lock up 10s of millions more people Vic? 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.24  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @2.1.23    one month ago
Since Reagan, prisons are being used as mental institutions.

How many federal mental hospitals did Jimmie Carter have?  Why weren't they brought back when we were flush with money under Clinton?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.25  Dulay  replied to  Vic Eldred @2.1.18    one month ago
Actually these lunatics have a history. In the most recent case this kid shot his grandmother before driving to the Robb Elementary school. Were police notified by the family of where he was going or the way he was acting?

There is NO evidence that Ramos is a 'lunatic' or even mentally ill for that matter Vic. This 'history' you cite all occurred within the span of a few hours. The police were already chasing him when he crashed by the school. 

Are you suggesting that every person that has 'egged cars', has had a 'troubled home life', has been 'bullied' and/or 'lashed out' should be incarcerated preemptively? 

Again, there just aren't enough prisons to accommodate your agenda. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.26  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @2.1.22    one month ago

Not exactly.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.27  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @2.1.25    one month ago
There is NO evidence that Ramos is a 'lunatic' or even mentally ill for that matter Vic.

Exactly, going into a 4th grade classroom and killing 19 kids and 2 teachers is a perfectly sane thing to do.

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
2.1.28  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.27    one month ago

Let alone cutting his face continually........more than likely for attention.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.29  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @2.1.28    one month ago
more than likely for attention.

The boy just wanted to have fun.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
2.1.30  Texan1211  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.24    one month ago
How many federal mental hospitals did Jimmie Carter have?  Why weren't they brought back when we were flush with money under Clinton?

The very same folks who want to blame Reagan conveniently ignore any Democratic Presidents and Congresses since he was in office.

The same kind of misguided "thinking" that leads them to wail on about supply-side economics while ignoring any Democrats in office.

Sounds to me like an admission that Democrats can't govern while in the majority or minority.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.31  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Texan1211 @2.1.30    one month ago
The very same folks who want to blame Reagan conveniently ignore any Democratic Presidents and Congresses since he was in office.

Obama once said, "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. He put us on a fundamentally different path because the country was ready for it. I think they felt like with all the excesses of the 1960s and 1970s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating. I think people, he just tapped into what people were already feeling, which was we want clarity we want optimism, we want a return to that sense of dynamism and entrepreneurship that had been missing."

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.32  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.24    one month ago
How many federal mental hospitals did Jimmie Carter have? 

The issue isn't 'federal mental hospitals' and if you knew anything about the topic, you wouldn't have asked that idiotic question. 

Why weren't they brought back when we were flush with money under Clinton?

See above. 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.33  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.27    one month ago

Exactly = Not at all.

James Holmes, who had YEARS of documented mental health issues, was found competent to stand trial and was found guilty of multiple murders despite his 'insanity' defense. 

Is it your posit that mass murderers should be deemed insane and therefore not accountable for their actions? If NOT, your comment is moot. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.34  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @2.1.33    one month ago

The legal and medical definitions may differ.

Do you assume that Ramos was mentally healthy?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.35  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @2.1.32    one month ago

What is the issue Dulay?

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.36  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.35    one month ago

Your ignorance of the topic. I thought I made that clear. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.37  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @2.1.36    one month ago

No, your original issue when you wrote:

Since Reagan, prisons are being used as mental institutions. No treatment, just incarceration.
 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.38  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.37    one month ago

I didn't have an "original issue'. I replied to Vic's comment. 

Perhaps, if you read what I block quoted and my entire comment, instead of taking those sentences out of context, it would help you understand my posit. 

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.1.39  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  Dulay @2.1.38    one month ago

No problem if you don’t want to discuss it further.

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.40  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.39    one month ago

Why the strawman?

I answered your question. Do you have future questions? 

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
2.1.41  Dulay  replied to  Drinker of the Wry @2.1.34    one month ago
The legal and medical definitions may differ.

I haven't mentioned either. 

Do you assume that Ramos was mentally healthy?

I assumed nothing. 

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago
Biden may have been a tad inarticulate

A tad inarticulate?  When has he EVER been articulate?  

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
2.3  Sean Treacy  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago

That doesn't address Biden's lie. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.4  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago

Sorry, John yet another swing and a miss.

Historians say they are doubtful that there were laws to bar individual ownership of cannons during the Revolutionary War period.

"It seems highly unlikely that there were restrictions on the private ownership" of cannons, said Julie Anne Sweet, a historian and director of military studies at Baylor University.

David Kopel, the research director and Second Amendment project director at the free-market Independence Institute, agreed. "I am not aware of a ban on any arm in colonial America," he said. "There were controls on people or locations, but not bans on types of arms."

The legal framework in the colonies was haphazard during the Revolutionary War period.

"At that time, there was no United States, just a bunch of very confused former colonies trying to cooperate, and often failing, to defeat the British military," Sweet said. "Any sort of gun regulations would have been at the local level, and therefore incredibly difficult and tedious to chase down. The new states were still writing new constitutions and probably did not take this matter into consideration."

There is at least one group of private citizens that owned cannons during the period: privateers.

Privateers were privately owned and operated ships that in wartime captured enemy ships for profit. While privateers received a license from the government that allowed them to avoid being prosecuted for piracy, they were not a part of the official navy. So any cannons they set sail with (or that they seized from the enemy) would be private property, not the property of the government or the regular military.

The 1899 book "A History of American Privateers" by Edgar Stanton Maclay notes several cases in which privateers during the Revolutionary War set sail using cannons.

So not just one cannon; but several ships worth owned by private US citizens.

Didn't take long to disprove the human fuck up machine currently residing in the oval office. 

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
2.4.1  JohnRussell  replied to  Ronin2 @2.4    one month ago

Keep grasping at irrelevant bullshit, and we'll keep laughing. 

 
 
 
magicschoolbusdropout
Freshman Expert
2.4.2  magicschoolbusdropout  replied to  JohnRussell @2.4.1    one month ago
Keep grasping at irrelevant bullshit

I should stop trying to understand your posts and why you write them ?

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
2.4.3  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @2.4.1    one month ago

So proven historical facts are irrelevant now?

No wonder the left are writing their own version of history. The real version doesn't conform to their warped, distorted, and twisted world view. 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
2.4.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  JohnRussell @2.4.1    one month ago
Keep grasping at irrelevant bullshit, and we'll keep laughing. 

Your usual projection, deflection, and denial.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
2.4.5  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @2.4.1    one month ago

Keep deflecting and denying and we'll do the same.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
2.5  Tacos!  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago

The example cited here is a limitation on bearing the firearm with the intent to terrify people. Today, we call that “brandishing” and it’s a crime pretty much everywhere. What this example does not do is to expose some kind of limit on the type of weapon a person may own in a responsible way.

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
2.6  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  JohnRussell @2    one month ago

I think President Biden is to be commended for reading, understanding and following Justice Scalia’s decision.

 
 
 
Tacos!
Professor Expert
3  Tacos!    one month ago

It’s hard to have productive conversations when people lie about the basic facts. Claiming (over and over) that the Second Amendment puts some kind of limit on the type of firearm a person can own is a lie.

I know people hate hearing this, but both sides do it. For example, gun advocates love to downplay the design and capabilities of AR weapons. “It’s just like a .22” is a huge lie.

 
 
 
Colour Me Free
Junior Quiet
3.1  Colour Me Free  replied to  Tacos! @3    one month ago
gun advocates love to downplay the design and capabilities of AR weapons. “It’s just like a .22” is a huge lie.

Yeah, no .. the key here is that the ammo does the damage .. I have a .223, as well as a Ruger 10-22 .. I can trade stocks and make either one look like an 'assault style rifle' .. as they both can be modified to fire in succession .. but for the most part it takes a finger pull on the trigger each time to expel a round.

I know people hate hearing this, but it is the ammo, not the 'scary looking' weapon the ammo comes out of that tears human flesh apart!  I sincerely cannot believe just how ignorant these anti gun people are - why are they bothering with gun control and regulating the number of rounds .. . find a way to regulate the fucking ammo available .. and POOF!  Most gun people are prepared, and load their own .. but powder is still needed to do so!  Please tell me where in the Second Amendment it says ammo is a right....

Every time this shit happens the screaming starts - but obviously NO ONE is truly interested in an actual solution - just more politic fodder in an election year!  It is SAD!

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
3.1.1  Ronin2  replied to  Colour Me Free @3.1    one month ago

Some people make their own powder as well. (Some militias and and all of the preppers I know make their own. They don't trust anyone. Least of all the government.) The information is found easily online how to make it.

They can also make their own firearms using a 3D printer; or metal working and machining tools. 

Ban something and it will be found on the black market (for a price of course); or people in the know will just make it themselves. It doesn't matter if it is ammo or firearms. Unless you extend the ban all the way to companies that make them- so none of the banned firearms or ammo are sold to other countries. Otherwise guns will be run across our southern border; just like drugs, and human trafficking. On just buy the weapon of your choice from the Taliban- they have plenty to offer. Though transporting it to the US might be a problem.

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
3.1.2  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ronin2 @3.1.1    one month ago

Reminds me of Newton's third law that states that for every action, there is an equal and opposite reaction.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4  TᵢG    one month ago

The office of PotUS brings with it great influence.   Many people accept what a PotUS publicly states as truth.   Big problem.

So every PotUS should be careful to speak only that which is verified to be true.   No adlibs / off-the-cuff claims.  

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5  Dismayed Patriot    one month ago

“Like most rights, the right secured by the Second Amendment is not unlimited. From Blackstone through the 19th-century cases, commentators and courts routinely explained that the right was not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose.” - Justice Antonin Scalia

" The Supreme Court on Monday denied review of a case challenging Connecticut’s ban on assault weapons . The case stems from legislation enacted in both New York and Connecticut in the wake of the 2012 shooting at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newton, Conn., which left 20 children between the ages of 6 and 7 dead, as well as six adult staff members. Gun rights advocates argue the bans violate their Second Amendment right to bear arms and that certain provisions are constitutionally vague. In October, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the bans . It said the core provisions of the New York and Connecticut laws prohibiting the possession of semiautomatic assault weapons and large-capacity magazines do not violate the Second Amendment and provisions in the laws are not vague. “Because the prohibitions are substantially related to the important governmental interests of public safety and crime reduction, they pass constitutional muster,” the court said."

Scalia on the Second Amendment – The Moderate Voice

Clearly, even conservatives have to accept that the 2nd amendment isn't unlimited. The rant by Turley about Biden talking about cannon ownership is completely irrelevant. What Turley or even Biden think about the 2nd amendment and how it was defined and or used in the past doesn't mean shit. The only thing that matters is the supreme courts interpretation of the law and they clearly recognize and have upheld sensible gun laws and even gun bans and have ruled that States that do so are not violating the 2nd amendment.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5    one month ago

Score another for the "it's okay when my guy lies" crew

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.1.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1    one month ago
Score another for the "it's okay when my guy lies" crew

No, NO IT's NOT OKAY, OKAY ? But after tens of thousands of TRUMP LIES, the attempt to put ole Joe in Trump's league, kjust another effort at fatigue. Joe LIED, TRUMP LIED AND LIED AND LIED AND CONTINUES TO LIE !  Theere is a difference....

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.1    one month ago
he attempt to put ole Joe in Trump's league

I think you have your comparison backwards.  But then the left is always overlooking the horrid statements of those they support.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5.1.3  Gsquared  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1    one month ago
the "it's okay when my guy lies" crew

That perfectly describes the trumpist-republiGUN party.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
5.1.4  Right Down the Center  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.1    one month ago

Funny how you say lying is not ok and in the next sentence try to differentiate between a lie and a lie x 3.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.1.5  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1    one month ago
"it's okay when my guy lies"

I didn't say it was "okay", I said it was irrelevant to the debate over the 2nd amendment. Biden's position and understanding of the 2nd amendment is correct, the 2nd amendment is not unlimited and does not give citizens the right to "keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose" as Justice Scalia pointed out. So whether or not Biden's understanding of history is lacking, the point he was trying to make, albeit using bogus assumptions, is quite correct. Those nitpicking on the example he tried to use instead of agreeing with the accurate point about the 2nd amendment he made when he said "the Second Amendment is not absolute," are clearly trying to just flinging poo because they don't want to accept that simple reality.

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.6  Sean Treacy  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.5    one month ago
Biden's position and understanding of the 2nd amendment is correct,

He's lying about it and, yet again, you are rationalizing and defending it.  

e, albeit using bogus assumptions, is quite correct. Tho

So you are fine with lying while making an argument. Good to let everyone know. 

 
 
 
Sean Treacy
Professor Expert
5.1.8  Sean Treacy  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.6    one month ago

I apparently hit an impasse button by mistake in response to 5.1.3 ...

I've tried to remove it but haven't had success. 

There is no reason for an impasse and it should be ignored. 

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.1.9  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Right Down the Center @5.1.4    one month ago

so , to you, it's okay to say Biden and Trump are LIARS, but not okay to say who was a BETTER, BIGGER, BLOVIATING, BULLSHIT SPREADIN BEHEMOTH....i, like many spouting around here, think knot 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
5.1.10  Right Down the Center  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.3    one month ago

That perfectly describes the obummer demoCRAP party.

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
5.1.11  Tessylo  replied to  Right Down the Center @5.1.10    one month ago

That's so mature.  As mature as Brandon.

 
 
 
bugsy
Professor Participates
5.1.12  bugsy  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.11    one month ago

Yea because whashisname, or whatever it is you use to try and smear Trump, is the epitome of maturity s/

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Masters Principal
5.1.13  Just Jim NC TttH  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.11    one month ago
As mature as Brandon

You forgot trumpturd

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
5.1.14  Snuffy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.9    one month ago

Does it matter who the bigger liar is?  Not really...   But there are several who are twisting to defend Biden when they were so very quick to call Trump out for everything he said as a lie.  Had Trump giving that speech where it was said that cannons were banned when the 2nd Amendment was written, the media and several people on this board would have been very vocal about the lie coming out of his mouth.  But now because it's Biden the excuse is given that he was "inelegant".  There's a single word that identifies this phenomenon ..  BULLSHIT

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
5.1.15  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @5.1.11    one month ago

Having you say that is hilarious. You must have missed the post I was responding to or you would understand my post.

 
 
 
Gsquared
Senior Expert
5.1.16  Gsquared  replied to  Right Down the Center @5.1.10    one month ago

Shit-eating republiGUNs have nothing on the Democratic Party.  Not a single thing.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
5.1.17  Right Down the Center  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.9    one month ago

Unlike the tds afflicted here I am not keeping score.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.1.18  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.14    one month ago
There's a single word that identifies this phenomenon ..  BULLSHIT

oh, i'll agree, cause what you state is BULLSHIT !  Cause you cannot compare overstating what is in, or can be done with, or what was meant in the Second Amendment, to a PRESIDENT of the United States LYING ABOIUT WHO IS THE RIGHTFUL PRESIDENT OF THESE UNITED STATES !!!   Cheese and Crackers, WTF. 45 wanted to use our Military to confiscate voting machines where Republican State Lawmakers had examined and found NO PROOF of VOTER FRAUD to affect any results, as it was ridiculously low, and apparently, possibly more tilted towards the  Republicans getting bustewd for Voter Fraud. Hell, a few in Trumps tight inner circle voted where They should not have. They we're also some of the most vocal on calling out voter fraud, What a joke 

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
5.1.19  Right Down the Center  replied to  Gsquared @5.1.16    one month ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
5.1.20  Snuffy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @5.1.18    one month ago

so all you can do is turn to how much of a bigger liar Trump is.  You do realize what this seed is about, don't you?  Doesn't seem to be as you continue to point to Trump when the purpose of the seed is that Biden LIED.   By your turning to Trump all you are doing is showing that  you realize that Biden lied again and you have no defense for it.  So you need to point to the lies of another to try to make Biden's lie less troublesome.  Again,  who fucking cares.  The seed is about Biden, not about Trump.  

If all you can do is turn to how much bigger Trump's lies are then you have no defense.  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
5.1.21  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Snuffy @5.1.20    one month ago
you have no defense.

DEFENSE ?    I STATED BIDEN LIED, but hippo critical critters consumed by partisanship parsing, completely defeat their own argument, for i was in the context of post 4, 5, 5.1 when i wrote that Biden LIED, but before these posts, i saw where Vic was stating the exact things that Trump required ( L:ike all of his tweets and statements explained by others ) and applying it to Biden , and to me, comparing a plastic BB to a nuclear war head does not a factual rumor spread.

 
 
 
Dismayed Patriot
Professor Participates
5.1.22  Dismayed Patriot  replied to  Sean Treacy @5.1.6    one month ago
So you are fine with lying while making an argument. Good to let everyone know.

If someone said "Be careful with that acid, it can burn your face off and was used by Hades the God of war to melt the gates of Mount Olympus", do you really worry about the fictional backstory or the fact that some acids can really burn your face off?

Nitpicking about this kind of irrelevant claim seizing on it as some "big lie" is ridiculous, especially when conservatives are constantly giving cover for the former liar-in-Chief who continues to lie his ass off and has over half of the Republican party lying along with him. Lying about fictional voter fraud is far more relevant than someone who may actually believe that cannons weren't readily available to the average citizen back when the constitution was written.

The fact is that cannons likely weren't readily available to common citizens considering the point Turley makes about Article 1, Section 8, Clause 11 which spells out the allowance for privateers to have cannons. So while there doesn't seem to be any federal laws at the time that banned cannon purchases, I doubt those reading and ratifying the 2nd amendment at the time were thinking that the law was intended to protect common citizens purchase and ownership of cannons to protect their homes and was far more likely to be understood as protecting their right to own muskets, sabers and swords.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5.1.23  JohnRussell  replied to  Dismayed Patriot @5.1.22    one month ago

Biden has a bad habit of shooting from the lip. I would not call it lying though. More like bs'ing if anything. The fact is though, that Biden's point ( that the second amendment can lead to gun regulation) is correct. These right wingers are desperate for ways to throw everyone off the stench of their positions on this issue. They are getting killed across social media world wide. 

 
 
 
Ronin2
Professor Quiet
5.1.24  Ronin2  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.23    one month ago

Excuses, excuses, excuses! Hold Brandon to the same standards you hold Trump to!

Brandon's only point is bringing up a Democrat talking point that will do nothing to solve the problem. 

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.25  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @5.1.13    one month ago

Bingo! Notice the vanishing act after you said that?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.26  Texan1211  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.23    one month ago
Biden has a bad habit of shooting from the lip. I would not call it lying though. More like bs'ing if anything.

Gee, could you POSSIBLY sugar-coat it JUST a little bit more??????

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.27  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Ronin2 @5.1.24    one month ago

"Hold Brandon to the same standards you hold Trump to!".

I think you are asking for the impossible there. He cannot do it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
5.1.28  Texan1211  replied to  Ed-NavDoc @5.1.27    one month ago

Can't because they don't have any standards for Biden!

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.29  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  Texan1211 @5.1.28    one month ago

Exactly!

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
5.1.30  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.23    one month ago
Biden has a bad habit of shooting from the lip.

I'ts called lying John.  Don't spin it.  

The fact is though, that Biden's point

He doesn't have a point.  The man hasn't put together a  comprehendible sentence in years.  He, like you, are only parroting what somebody else told him.  

 
 
 
Ed-NavDoc
Professor Quiet
5.1.31  Ed-NavDoc  replied to  JohnRussell @5.1.23    one month ago

jrSmiley_10_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6  igknorantzrulz    one month ago

There are common sense solutions that will not force anyone down this "slippery slope' as it is referred to, and Pols claiming as much, totally Disgust me, as they should A ll of US !  We, as a country, are BETTER THAN THIS !

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.1  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6    one month ago
There are common sense solutions that will not force anyone down this "slippery slope' a

Gee, I don't know about that.

Isn't SCOTUS overruling Roe v. Wade supposed to lead us all down that path anyway?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
6.2  Snuffy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6    one month ago

Please list / explain some of these common sense solutions then.  What I've seen out of the Democrat party is not common sense but then again I doubt they define the term the same way either.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.2.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Snuffy @6.2    one month ago

do you believe, an individual on our Nations No Fly List, should be allowed to purchase a Firearm ?

 
 
 
Drinker of the Wry
Freshman Principal
6.2.2  Drinker of the Wry  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.2.1    one month ago
do you believe, an individual on our Nations No Fly List, should be allowed to purchase a Firearm ?

The right wing, reactionary American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU) is opposed to barring weapons sales to individuals on the No Fly List:

"There is no constitutional bar to reasonable regulation of guns, and the No Fly List could serve as one tool for it, but only with major reform."

Apparently, those wacko's, think that the NFL procedures dos't meet the requirements of Due Process.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
6.2.3  Snuffy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.2.1    one month ago

No I don't, however I also believe that the No Fly list needs to be better vetted and there needs to be a way for people to find out if they are on it and there needs to be a way they can clear their names and get off the list.  It's rather easy to get added to the list but almost impossible to get off of it.  The list was initially set up to prevent terrorists from getting on air planes and as air travel is not a constitutional right this passed easily in the aftermath of 9/11.   But gun ownership is an enumerated right so if you are taking away that right it does need to be handled judicially, due process must be followed.  My opinion.

 
 
 
Snuffy
Senior Guide
6.2.4  Snuffy  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.2.1    one month ago

I also believe that if someone has been convicted of spousal abuse they should not be allowed to possess a fire arm.  

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
6.2.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Snuffy @6.2.4    one month ago

two common sense points we both agreed upon

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
6.2.6  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @6.2.1    one month ago

If the inclusion on the no fly list is warranted, and the person on it gets it adjudicated in a court of law, sure!

 
 
 
Dulay
Professor Principal
6.2.7  Dulay  replied to  Snuffy @6.2.4    one month ago

Unfortunately, there is an utter lack of enforcement, even where that law exists. Judges just don't do the follow up needed to ensure that weapons are relinquished as required. Tens of thousands of abusers remain armed in even the most restrictive states. 

 
 
 
Tessylo
Professor Principal
7  Tessylo    one month ago

284141768_5280740855294439_3576481034710287271_n.jpg?stp=dst-jpg_p552x414&_nc_cat=110&ccb=1-7&_nc_sid=730e14&_nc_ohc=32fcz-xoExIAX_pnkVh&_nc_ht=scontent-iad3-1.xx&oh=00_AT94tOWeQXNpGmZMabLHUpE00SWiD-KBLlD14o660KKr3A&oe=62949E2C

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
7.1  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @7    one month ago

Thank God the dems are spending their time making sure everyone gets called by the pronoun they want based on their gender feelings of the day and promoting a ridiculous theory that doesn't exist in order to try and score a few political points. It is not like a baby formula shortage was totally out of control before they noticed it.

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.1  Texan1211  replied to  Right Down the Center @7.1    one month ago
Thank God the dems are spending their time making sure everyone gets called by the pronoun they want based on their gender feelings of the day and promoting a ridiculous theory that doesn't exist in order to try and score a few political points.

Gee, I figured that by changing the names on boxes of rice and syrup we would have achieved world peace by now.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
7.1.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.1    one month ago

Have you noticed that they removed EVERY person of color from products and left all the whites?  

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.3  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.2    one month ago
Have you noticed that they removed EVERY person of color from products and left all the whites?  

Must have been white supremacists making those decisions.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
7.1.4  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.3    one month ago

The left does seem to know a lot of them don't they.

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
7.1.5  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Texan1211 @7.1.3    one month ago

need some "White Out" ?

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.6  Texan1211  replied to  igknorantzrulz @7.1.5    one month ago
need some "White Out" ?

Nope--no typos in my post.

Thanks anyway, but save some for yourself!

 
 
 
Texan1211
Professor Principal
7.1.7  Texan1211  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.1.4    one month ago

Probably have a list.

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
7.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  Tessylo @7    one month ago

Thank God the dems are sending billions to Ukraine instead of securing our schools.  Don't you just love how those "Gun Free Zone" signs are working out to slow all this?

 
 
 
igknorantzrulz
PhD Quiet
7.2.1  igknorantzrulz  replied to  Jeremy Retired in NC @7.2    one month ago
Thank God the dems are sending billions to Ukraine

so, it is just the Dems...? That money is some of the best money, spent , as it is causing Russia and Putin to fold, and shrink, without US All on the brink

 
 
 
Jeremy Retired in NC
PhD Guide
7.2.2  Jeremy Retired in NC  replied to  igknorantzrulz @7.2.1    one month ago
That money is some of the best money, spent

yeah, no. 

without US All on the brink

You need to look around you.

 
 
 
Right Down the Center
Freshman Guide
7.3  Right Down the Center  replied to  Tessylo @7    one month ago

256

 
 
 
Split Personality
Professor Principal
8  Split Personality    one month ago

Vic, you are obligated by copyright law to publish the picture that is published by the author

(Turley) of Molly Pritchard doing cannon duty. 

You put the site at risk by deliberately defying these rules over & over again.

I will no longer "fix" these issues for you and simply lock the article(s).

Article is locked.

 
 

Who is online





cjcold


34 visitors