Hider9k

Doesn’t look a day over 12.

Lmfao. You don’t need to use the word in order for your fear to be apparent. It drips from you. And no, blanket statements that angry mobs of democrats stormed the world during the “summer of love” do not count as evidence for your claim that you need to arm yourself in order to stave off a nonexistent threat. It’s like a child sharpening a stick to fend off the boogeyman.

Secondarily, I have no issue with you owning guns or exercising your 2A rights. What I disagree with is your moronic and literally foundation-less opinion that the 2A can never be limited, modified, or restricted in any way. I think it’s funny, yes, both this stance and your palpable fear, but I also think it is scary in that your opinion is not reflected in the law or reality and yet you still are convinced of your own rightfulness. It truly is childlike: clinging to your perspective against all reason and against any objective fact.

Ban me, dip shit.

Lmfao. This is my favorite fucking type of comment because it immediately outs you as someone who has no idea what the constitution means or how it is interpreted and implemented.

Keep typing “shall not be infringed,” bud. Your rudimentary understanding of the 2A and the ability to read its text has no bearing on current Supreme Court precedent on the 2A, nor does it have any bearing on my right to argue that your 2A rights should be limited. It’s a constitutional amendment subject to limitation and further amendment, despite the “shall not be infringed” language. You’re just retarded.

He (they?) told me on another post that they’re preparing for confrontations with violent mobs of democrats. I’m not joking.

It’s not baseless though: it’s based on your claim that you need to defend yourself from a non-existent threat. It’s your fear that is baseless and I have asked you multiple times to provide evidence that, in your words, “violent mobs of democrats” pose a threat to you but you haven’t provided any. That’s the topic, and you’re the one not addressing it. You’re not “being prepared,” you’re being deranged and fearful and arming yourself in response.

Ah yes, a source-less article from the NRA claiming that gun ownership = personal safety. Par for the course for the outhouse-brained wintermute_oregon who lives in fear of being accosted by angry mobs of democrats on a daily basis. God I love this place.

“During their encounter, Wolf reportedly told the student, ‘I will tear your a– apart if you ever vote for Donald Trump or any other stinking conservative Republicans. I’ll let you go into moderates. But if I hear Trump or Cruz or even any member of the Bush family, you’re not going to sit down for days.’”

Yea I pretty much like my soulless corporate cash grabs to be pretty to look at, thanks.

Your stance is based on fear. You are afraid that angry mobs of democrats are going to come and hurt you or damage your property or something to that tune, and you need a weapon. Am I wrong? If I’m wrong, tell me exactly down to the last detail what you think the mob is going to do, and why you need the weapon. You’re afraid, and you’re paranoid, and it is disturbing. Obviously I can’t change your mind but I genuinely wish you well and I hope you get help.

Do you listen to yourself? Go back and read this comment. (A) You’re ceding the argument to me, so let’s acknowledge that. I don’t give a fuck about how “solid” you think the current case law is. Plenty of dems (in fact the vast majority of the US legal sphere) accepted the Roe abortion framework as “solid” but we see how much half a century plus of established case law influenced the recent Court on that issue. Do you have a law degree? If not, probably stay quiet about how “solid” you think your gun rights are. They are just as capable of change as any other law. (B) contrary to what you’ve said this argument and your stance is patently based on fear. But not a logical, evidence-based fear: the sort of fear only a terminally-online, Fox-news-brain addled moron could possess—that being the legitimate fear that mobs of angry, violent democrats are chomping at the bit to come and kill you and that you need a firearm to defend yourself against them. That is an asinine position. It is paranoid and delusional against all evidence to the contrary of which there is plenty including, for example, every day in which you live your life without being attacked or faced by a mob of violent democrats. That is so moronic and SAD I can’t believe I am actually typing this out. (C) Again, to the contrary, the current popular push for gun control I would argue is not fear based (at least not close to wholly fear based) but rather evidence-based. You know, because there is a vast body of evidence out there regarding the dangerous nature of firearms, the fact that proximity to a firearm renders you more likely to die as a result of a firearm, etcetera, etcetera, then having no actual use for most of the population that owns them, bump stocks, Stephen fucking Paddock unleashing slaughter on concert goers (but I’m sure that was a “false flag,” right, you nutter?) …. The list of evidence supporting gun control as a public safety measure, not to mention a prohibitor of mass fucking slaughter, goes on and on and fucking on. Meanwhile, you have zero evidence outside your own deluded and rotten brain that mobs of angry democrats are waiting to take down the country and that we need to arm ourselves to prevent it.

Forget “good faith.” You people are actually fucking retarded. No wonder you’re feeling the need to arm yourself, and no wonder half of the “GOP” is chomping at the bit for Civil War II. You’re all too fucking stupid to conversate and your political positions are at best paranoid fantasies. You genuinely need help

You are partially correct. It is the province of the Court to determine what the law is—and that includes interpreting the constitution. (This shouldn’t surprise me. Your “constitutional republic” comment says to me you’re uninformed and more interested in technicalities than the way our government actually works, but whatever.) To amend the 2A, yes, a constitutional amendment would be required. However the courts and congress are 100 percent free to (a) interpret the constitution more stringently or more loosely and (b) to legislate in such a way that results in a new constraining of “gun rights.” Both are fundamental facets of our democracy. And what is notable to me is that you still have not provided one iota of a justification for your “right” to own deadly weapons. You can claim whatever justification you’d like. The fact is that other people, the courts, legislatures and congress are all free to act to constrain the 2A. They can do so permissibly, in an arguably constitutional manner. So why shouldn’t we? Why does your need to own a firearm outweigh the clear and present danger posed to our communities and our country by gun violence and by the proliferation of firearms? Why do conservatives routinely fail to provide good solutions, instead falling back on the sword of “individual liberties” with regard to this issue? I think the answer is that you don’t have good arguments. Your stance is based in fear, and based in needing a little AR-15 in your house to feel safe. Fucking cowards. Your “right” to own a firearm is a house of straw. I’ll spend my life fighting against short-minded people like you, just to take that “right” away.