He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

So for argument's sake let's say the phrase was written (based upon the available technology and community standards of the day) to state that there should be no restrictions placed on anyone possessing any weapon that they knew to exist.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

Yes. The purpose was to keep us free from tyrants. Like the kind of tyrants that prosecute political opponents and put healthy, law-abiding people under house arrest without just cause over virus and coerce them to put a needle in their arm over scary unseen particle.

---

You didn't answer the question.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

The first word of my response was yes.

---

The Gun Control Act of 1968 restricted, among other things, the following:
Minors buying guns
Felons possessing guns
Mentally unstable people possessing guns

Add to this the possession of chemical weapons and plutonium/uranium/etc. is also illegal.

Do you agree or disagree with these restrictions placed upon US Citizens 2nd amendment rights?

---

No. I think that if you are capable of service to a militia or to the military, there should be no restriction on your right to own any kind of weapon. Minors, felons, and the mentally ill are all unfit for militia or military service. So, those classes of people are necessarily are banned from weapons possession by a plain reading of the First Amendment.

---

So you do believe in the restrictions placed in 1968. Note that those restrictions were not necessarily in place prior to that law. So the SECOND amendment has nothing to do with it.

Does your interpretation include the idea that all who are "unfit for military service" are excluded from 2nd amendment rights? If not, then fitness for military service is not a valid argument.

Also, to clarify, in your opinion chemical weapons and plutonium should be made available to any adult citizen who is not a felon or officially diagnosed with a mental disability?

---

Yep. If you can afford plutonium, then you get plutonium. And I said, that I believe in the Second Amendment as it is written. If you are not fit for militia or military service, then you are outside the scope of the Second Amendment. As you represent the "restrictions" of the 1968 act, those "restrictions" concerning felons, minors, and the mentally ill are consistent with the Second Amendment.

---

Gotcha.
Plutonium and chemical weapons: yes
Women who are far enough along pregnant: no
Physically disabled: no
Elderly: no

I can honestly say I am glad your viewpoint on the 2nd amendment and subsequent laws regarding possession of weapons is not how the US operates and I would be willing to bet more than 99% of the population agrees with me.

This is just f'ing sick.

Is this for real? There weren't seven victims, you sickos. https://t.co/Z14dwHZM48

— Mary Katharine Ham (@mkhammer) March 31, 2023

90sBear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

He Hate Me said:

---

90sBear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

So for argument's sake let's say the phrase was written (based upon the available technology and community standards of the day) to state that there should be no restrictions placed on anyone possessing any weapon that they knew to exist.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

Yes. The purpose was to keep us free from tyrants. Like the kind of tyrants that prosecute political opponents and put healthy, law-abiding people under house arrest without just cause over virus and coerce them to put a needle in their arm over scary unseen particle.

---

You didn't answer the question.

Do you believe that should be the case today?

---

The first word of my response was yes.

---

The Gun Control Act of 1968 restricted, among other things, the following:
Minors buying guns
Felons possessing guns
Mentally unstable people possessing guns

Add to this the possession of chemical weapons and plutonium/uranium/etc. is also illegal.

Do you agree or disagree with these restrictions placed upon US Citizens 2nd amendment rights?

---

No. I think that if you are capable of service to a militia or to the military, there should be no restriction on your right to own any kind of weapon. Minors, felons, and the mentally ill are all unfit for militia or military service. So, those classes of people are necessarily are banned from weapons possession by a plain reading of the First Amendment.

---

So you do believe in the restrictions placed in 1968. Note that those restrictions were not necessarily in place prior to that law. So the SECOND amendment has nothing to do with it.

Does your interpretation include the idea that all who are "unfit for military service" are excluded from 2nd amendment rights? If not, then fitness for military service is not a valid argument.

Also, to clarify, in your opinion chemical weapons and plutonium should be made available to any adult citizen who is not a felon or officially diagnosed with a mental disability?

---

Yep. If you can afford plutonium, then you get plutonium. And I said, that I believe in the Second Amendment as it is written. If you are not fit for militia or military service, then you are outside the scope of the Second Amendment. As you represent the "restrictions" of the 1968 act, those "restrictions" concerning felons, minors, and the mentally ill are consistent with the Second Amendment.

---

Gotcha.
Plutonium and chemical weapons: yes
Women who are far enough along pregnant: no
Physically disabled: no
Elderly: no

I can honestly say I am glad your viewpoint on the 2nd amendment and subsequent laws regarding possession of weapons is not how the US operates and I would be willing to bet more than 99% of the population agrees with me.

---

Nobody cares how you feel about my views. However, you did ask about mine.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

---

They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

So you won't answer the question.

That's part of my point, actually.

We all know why that phrase was included.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War was to keep British (i.e. government) troops from seizing a privately-owned cannon.

The references in the Constitution to 'Letters of Marque' demonstrate that the founders not only understood that there were private individuals with their own warships, but set up rules on how to contract with such individuals to assist the US government when needed. The implication is that, yes, if you could make your own warship, your own tank, your own armed aircraft, if you could be responsible in your actions the founders had no worries about you.

There are a great many essays and quotes on the mind of our founders regarding weapons, and they are strongly consistent.

The Founders plainly refused to let the government decide what weapons the citizens could have for their use.

Every law restricting guns, ammunition by number, size or type is a slap in the face of the Founders of our country.

Right about now, some here will be hyperventilating over mass shootings, terrorism and every other phobia they have rolling around in their skulls. Some will claim my observation somehow excuses every crime committed with a weapon.

Our nation's founders had no trouble recognizing the inherent right of citizens to keep and use arms, while at the same time holding people accountable for their actions. During the Whiskey Rebellion, for example, the government under Washington arrested rioters who rose up against the government and seized the weapons they used, while notably not restricting the use and ownership of weapons by people not involved in the uprising.

We have plainly seen that gun laws do not work. Those damnable 'gun free zones' at schools, for example, only disarm innocent people who could otherwise defend themselves, and allow murderers to plan where they alone would be armed. Rules on magazine sizes, on how scary a gun can be and still be legal, or whether a person has to prove to the government's pleasure that they meet the definition of "need" are all useless in protecting innocent people, and serve only a tyrant's goals.

We need a long, serious discussion on guns, starting with the fact that the American right to a gun is - beyond argument - absolute unless that person has demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat, and if so, it is their specific actions which bring the consequence of arrest and incarceration, not the gun.

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

---

They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

So you won't answer the question.

That's part of my point, actually.

We all know why that phrase was included.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War was to keep British (i.e. government) troops from seizing a privately-owned cannon.

The references in the Constitution to 'Letters of Marque' demonstrate that the founders not only understood that there were private individuals with their own warships, but set up rules on how to contract with such individuals to assist the US government when needed. The implication is that, yes, if you could make your own warship, your own tank, your own armed aircraft, if you could be responsible in your actions the founders had no worries about you.

There are a great many essays and quotes on the mind of our founders regarding weapons, and they are strongly consistent.

The Founders plainly refused to let the government decide what weapons the citizens could have for their use.

Every law restricting guns, ammunition by number, size or type is a slap in the face of the Founders of our country.

Right about now, some here will be hyperventilating over mass shootings, terrorism and every other phobia they have rolling around in their skulls. Some will claim my observation somehow excuses every crime committed with a weapon.

Our nation's founders had no trouble recognizing the inherent right of citizens to keep and use arms, while at the same time holding people accountable for their actions. During the Whiskey Rebellion, for example, the government under Washington arrested rioters who rose up against the government and seized the weapons they used, while notably not restricting the use and ownership of weapons by people not involved in the uprising.

We have plainly seen that gun laws do not work. Those damnable 'gun free zones' at schools, for example, only disarm innocent people who could otherwise defend themselves, and allow murderers to plan where they alone would be armed. Rules on magazine sizes, on how scary a gun can be and still be legal, or whether a person has to prove to the government's pleasure that they meet the definition of "need" are all useless in protecting innocent people, and serve only a tyrant's goals.

We need a long, serious discussion on guns, starting with the fact that the American right to a gun is - beyond argument - absolute unless that person has demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat, and if so, it is their specific actions which bring the consequence of arrest and incarceration, not the gun.

---

Let me explain: The use of the term "shall not be infringed" is neither unique nor noteworthy when comparing the right to bear arms with other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

I don't know why the used that phrase instead of any other similar language and it really doesn't matter.

"it really doesn't matter."

It damn well does.

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

---

They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

So you won't answer the question.

That's part of my point, actually.

We all know why that phrase was included.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War was to keep British (i.e. government) troops from seizing a privately-owned cannon.

The references in the Constitution to 'Letters of Marque' demonstrate that the founders not only understood that there were private individuals with their own warships, but set up rules on how to contract with such individuals to assist the US government when needed. The implication is that, yes, if you could make your own warship, your own tank, your own armed aircraft, if you could be responsible in your actions the founders had no worries about you.

There are a great many essays and quotes on the mind of our founders regarding weapons, and they are strongly consistent.

The Founders plainly refused to let the government decide what weapons the citizens could have for their use.

Every law restricting guns, ammunition by number, size or type is a slap in the face of the Founders of our country.

Right about now, some here will be hyperventilating over mass shootings, terrorism and every other phobia they have rolling around in their skulls. Some will claim my observation somehow excuses every crime committed with a weapon.

Our nation's founders had no trouble recognizing the inherent right of citizens to keep and use arms, while at the same time holding people accountable for their actions. During the Whiskey Rebellion, for example, the government under Washington arrested rioters who rose up against the government and seized the weapons they used, while notably not restricting the use and ownership of weapons by people not involved in the uprising.

We have plainly seen that gun laws do not work. Those damnable 'gun free zones' at schools, for example, only disarm innocent people who could otherwise defend themselves, and allow murderers to plan where they alone would be armed. Rules on magazine sizes, on how scary a gun can be and still be legal, or whether a person has to prove to the government's pleasure that they meet the definition of "need" are all useless in protecting innocent people, and serve only a tyrant's goals.

We need a long, serious discussion on guns, starting with the fact that the American right to a gun is - beyond argument - absolute unless that person has demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat, and if so, it is their specific actions which bring the consequence of arrest and incarceration, not the gun.

---

Let me explain: The use of the term "shall not be infringed" is neither unique nor noteworthy when comparing the right to bear arms with other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

I don't know why the used that phrase instead of any other similar language and it really doesn't matter.

---

"It's not unique despite it being the only time the phrase is used!" Wouldn't that be the definition of unique? Sounds like you just don't WANT it to be significant.

There are a small amount of people that don't want gun control and a small amount that want guns totally outlawed. In this thread we only half the crazies.

We need extremely strict federal gun regulation that requires weeks of training. I'd actually prefer mandatory training by the military. But I'm also for a year of mandatory service. It makes the country stronger and also can provide easier entry to industry without everyone getting in massive debt to get an English degree.

For the people that want to own all the guns and have a basement full of ammo - you are going to have to get used to a new world where no one cares about your fantasy of another civil war. Feel free to wipe the dorritos off your shirt and storm the capitol again.

Wangchung said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

---

They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

So you won't answer the question.

That's part of my point, actually.

We all know why that phrase was included.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War was to keep British (i.e. government) troops from seizing a privately-owned cannon.

The references in the Constitution to 'Letters of Marque' demonstrate that the founders not only understood that there were private individuals with their own warships, but set up rules on how to contract with such individuals to assist the US government when needed. The implication is that, yes, if you could make your own warship, your own tank, your own armed aircraft, if you could be responsible in your actions the founders had no worries about you.

There are a great many essays and quotes on the mind of our founders regarding weapons, and they are strongly consistent.

The Founders plainly refused to let the government decide what weapons the citizens could have for their use.

Every law restricting guns, ammunition by number, size or type is a slap in the face of the Founders of our country.

Right about now, some here will be hyperventilating over mass shootings, terrorism and every other phobia they have rolling around in their skulls. Some will claim my observation somehow excuses every crime committed with a weapon.

Our nation's founders had no trouble recognizing the inherent right of citizens to keep and use arms, while at the same time holding people accountable for their actions. During the Whiskey Rebellion, for example, the government under Washington arrested rioters who rose up against the government and seized the weapons they used, while notably not restricting the use and ownership of weapons by people not involved in the uprising.

We have plainly seen that gun laws do not work. Those damnable 'gun free zones' at schools, for example, only disarm innocent people who could otherwise defend themselves, and allow murderers to plan where they alone would be armed. Rules on magazine sizes, on how scary a gun can be and still be legal, or whether a person has to prove to the government's pleasure that they meet the definition of "need" are all useless in protecting innocent people, and serve only a tyrant's goals.

We need a long, serious discussion on guns, starting with the fact that the American right to a gun is - beyond argument - absolute unless that person has demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat, and if so, it is their specific actions which bring the consequence of arrest and incarceration, not the gun.

---

Let me explain: The use of the term "shall not be infringed" is neither unique nor noteworthy when comparing the right to bear arms with other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

I don't know why the used that phrase instead of any other similar language and it really doesn't matter.

---

"It's not unique despite it being the only time the phrase is used!" Wouldn't that be the definition of unique? Sounds like you just don't WANT it to be significant.

---

Yup. Everything written at that time the Constitution was being drafted, is clear that the Founders did not want government restrictions on weapons. Very much the opposite.

Some folks are afraid that this fact could be used to claim that the Founders' original intent is not appropriate today, while others have - at least to some degree - bought into the lie that guns are more dangerous than other tools and so must be "controlled' by government for our own good. Such people recognize what such thoughts mean, so instead of saying what they really think, they pretend that the phrase, despite being specifically used just for that one purpose, somehow is not important.

The plain truth is that we are all responsible for building our communities and taking matters under our own authority to address. It's culture that needs to be addressed and corrected, not whether Bob down the street can be allowed to have a gun ... or a gas stove or an internal-Combustion Engine truck, for that matter.

A gun is no more dangerous than a chainsaw, car, bug spray or anything else we may use. And a gun has proven tremendously valuable to people who would have been raped, bludgeoned and/or murdered if they had been unarmed.

The biggest threat, frankly, is that mob of career politicians who wouldn't know the right thing to do, and clearly do not care about the oath they swore to uphold the Constitution.

The guy in blue is an obvious plant to cause trouble and should have been arrested.

MAYHEM: Protesters in the Tennessee Capitol blocked a bathroom doorway, preventing a legislator from exiting.

Then the state troopers got involved. My footage with @BreitbartNews: pic.twitter.com/nvus4962XE

— Spencer Lindquist 🇺🇸 (@SpencerLndqst) March 30, 2023

Oldbear83 said:

---

"it really doesn't matter."

It damn well does.

---

To show that "It damn well does," please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law… abridging the right to bear arms" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Wangchung said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

---

They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

So you won't answer the question.

That's part of my point, actually.

We all know why that phrase was included.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War was to keep British (i.e. government) troops from seizing a privately-owned cannon.

The references in the Constitution to 'Letters of Marque' demonstrate that the founders not only understood that there were private individuals with their own warships, but set up rules on how to contract with such individuals to assist the US government when needed. The implication is that, yes, if you could make your own warship, your own tank, your own armed aircraft, if you could be responsible in your actions the founders had no worries about you.

There are a great many essays and quotes on the mind of our founders regarding weapons, and they are strongly consistent.

The Founders plainly refused to let the government decide what weapons the citizens could have for their use.

Every law restricting guns, ammunition by number, size or type is a slap in the face of the Founders of our country.

Right about now, some here will be hyperventilating over mass shootings, terrorism and every other phobia they have rolling around in their skulls. Some will claim my observation somehow excuses every crime committed with a weapon.

Our nation's founders had no trouble recognizing the inherent right of citizens to keep and use arms, while at the same time holding people accountable for their actions. During the Whiskey Rebellion, for example, the government under Washington arrested rioters who rose up against the government and seized the weapons they used, while notably not restricting the use and ownership of weapons by people not involved in the uprising.

We have plainly seen that gun laws do not work. Those damnable 'gun free zones' at schools, for example, only disarm innocent people who could otherwise defend themselves, and allow murderers to plan where they alone would be armed. Rules on magazine sizes, on how scary a gun can be and still be legal, or whether a person has to prove to the government's pleasure that they meet the definition of "need" are all useless in protecting innocent people, and serve only a tyrant's goals.

We need a long, serious discussion on guns, starting with the fact that the American right to a gun is - beyond argument - absolute unless that person has demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat, and if so, it is their specific actions which bring the consequence of arrest and incarceration, not the gun.

---

Let me explain: The use of the term "shall not be infringed" is neither unique nor noteworthy when comparing the right to bear arms with other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

I don't know why the used that phrase instead of any other similar language and it really doesn't matter.

---

"It's not unique despite it being the only time the phrase is used!" Wouldn't that be the definition of unique? Sounds like you just don't WANT it to be significant.

---

Same question for you: please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law… abridging the right to bear arms" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"it really doesn't matter."

It damn well does.

---

To show that "It damn well does," please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law… abridging the right to bear arms" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

Go read my earlier post.

I was very clear about the Second Amendment wording.

To the best of my knowledge, we are not debating the First Amendment here.

The absurdity of this angle...three children are dead. Three of their caretakers are dead. They were murdered for the sin of minding their own business at their own school. And THIS is what @Reuters is worried about. https://t.co/bf8poGQHUC

— Kira (@RealKiraDavis) March 31, 2023

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

"it really doesn't matter."

It damn well does.

---

To show that "It damn well does," please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law… abridging the right to bear arms" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

Go read my earlier post.

I was very clear about the Second Amendment wording.

To the best of my knowledge, we are not debating the First Amendment here.

---

You are arguing that the 2nd amendment wording is special, aren't you? I am arguing that its wording does not make it unique or special among other rights listed in the constitution so I would need to provide an example of what makes me right and you wrong. The wording of the first amendment provides that example. So, I ask again, To show that "It damn well does," please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law… abridging the right to bear arms" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (And I did read your earlier post).

A trans activist was sure visible this week but Joe doesn’t want to talk about why https://t.co/wbkguBNfpo

— Sunny McSunnyface (@sunnyright) March 31, 2023

Joe has remembered murdered children by praising the ideology of their murderer.

It’s not an accident. They’re hoping the message got sent and their opponents are in fear. https://t.co/wbkguBNfpo

— Sunny McSunnyface (@sunnyright) March 31, 2023

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

---

They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

So you won't answer the question.

That's part of my point, actually.

We all know why that phrase was included.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War was to keep British (i.e. government) troops from seizing a privately-owned cannon.

The references in the Constitution to 'Letters of Marque' demonstrate that the founders not only understood that there were private individuals with their own warships, but set up rules on how to contract with such individuals to assist the US government when needed. The implication is that, yes, if you could make your own warship, your own tank, your own armed aircraft, if you could be responsible in your actions the founders had no worries about you.

There are a great many essays and quotes on the mind of our founders regarding weapons, and they are strongly consistent.

The Founders plainly refused to let the government decide what weapons the citizens could have for their use.

Every law restricting guns, ammunition by number, size or type is a slap in the face of the Founders of our country.

Right about now, some here will be hyperventilating over mass shootings, terrorism and every other phobia they have rolling around in their skulls. Some will claim my observation somehow excuses every crime committed with a weapon.

Our nation's founders had no trouble recognizing the inherent right of citizens to keep and use arms, while at the same time holding people accountable for their actions. During the Whiskey Rebellion, for example, the government under Washington arrested rioters who rose up against the government and seized the weapons they used, while notably not restricting the use and ownership of weapons by people not involved in the uprising.

We have plainly seen that gun laws do not work. Those damnable 'gun free zones' at schools, for example, only disarm innocent people who could otherwise defend themselves, and allow murderers to plan where they alone would be armed. Rules on magazine sizes, on how scary a gun can be and still be legal, or whether a person has to prove to the government's pleasure that they meet the definition of "need" are all useless in protecting innocent people, and serve only a tyrant's goals.

We need a long, serious discussion on guns, starting with the fact that the American right to a gun is - beyond argument - absolute unless that person has demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat, and if so, it is their specific actions which bring the consequence of arrest and incarceration, not the gun.

---

So since you also were not in the room, you are also offering opinions as to their intentions and meaning. And that's fine, but just know that to be the case that you are offering an opinion just like everyone else is.

It seems you also agree with the portion of the Gun Control Act of 1968 that restricted possession of guns by felons. Note that was a due process change from the law as it had been up to that point.

Where do you stand on some of the other restrictions that were newly created - namely gun purchases by minors and possession of guns by those deemed to be mentally unfit?

I see you are pro tank, warship, and military aircraft. What is your stance on chemical weapons and plutonium and other military grade radioactive materials?

When you say a person has "demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat", does that include making multiple public statements? For example, could someone who is diagnosed bipolar or someone with extensive ties to terrorist organizations but hasn't yet been convicted of any crimes involving hurting another person make numerous public statements that they are going to blow up the White House legally purchase plastic explosives?

D. C. Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

---

They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

So you won't answer the question.

That's part of my point, actually.

We all know why that phrase was included.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War was to keep British (i.e. government) troops from seizing a privately-owned cannon.

The references in the Constitution to 'Letters of Marque' demonstrate that the founders not only understood that there were private individuals with their own warships, but set up rules on how to contract with such individuals to assist the US government when needed. The implication is that, yes, if you could make your own warship, your own tank, your own armed aircraft, if you could be responsible in your actions the founders had no worries about you.

There are a great many essays and quotes on the mind of our founders regarding weapons, and they are strongly consistent.

The Founders plainly refused to let the government decide what weapons the citizens could have for their use.

Every law restricting guns, ammunition by number, size or type is a slap in the face of the Founders of our country.

Right about now, some here will be hyperventilating over mass shootings, terrorism and every other phobia they have rolling around in their skulls. Some will claim my observation somehow excuses every crime committed with a weapon.

Our nation's founders had no trouble recognizing the inherent right of citizens to keep and use arms, while at the same time holding people accountable for their actions. During the Whiskey Rebellion, for example, the government under Washington arrested rioters who rose up against the government and seized the weapons they used, while notably not restricting the use and ownership of weapons by people not involved in the uprising.

We have plainly seen that gun laws do not work. Those damnable 'gun free zones' at schools, for example, only disarm innocent people who could otherwise defend themselves, and allow murderers to plan where they alone would be armed. Rules on magazine sizes, on how scary a gun can be and still be legal, or whether a person has to prove to the government's pleasure that they meet the definition of "need" are all useless in protecting innocent people, and serve only a tyrant's goals.

We need a long, serious discussion on guns, starting with the fact that the American right to a gun is - beyond argument - absolute unless that person has demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat, and if so, it is their specific actions which bring the consequence of arrest and incarceration, not the gun.

---

Let me explain: The use of the term "shall not be infringed" is neither unique nor noteworthy when comparing the right to bear arms with other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

I don't know why the used that phrase instead of any other similar language and it really doesn't matter.

---

"It's not unique despite it being the only time the phrase is used!" Wouldn't that be the definition of unique? Sounds like you just don't WANT it to be significant.

---

Same question for you: please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law… abridging the right to bear arms" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

Can a right be infringed upon in other ways than by congress? Say, a city ordinance?

Jacques Strap said:

---

Joe has remembered murdered children by praising the ideology of their murderer.

It’s not an accident. They’re hoping the message got sent and their opponents are in fear. https://t.co/wbkguBNfpo

— Sunny McSunnyface (@sunnyright) March 31, 2023

---

April 17, 1865: Southern actor Day of Visibility

November 25, 1963: Ex-Marine Sharpshooter Day of Visibility (canceled; rescheduled for August 4, 1966)

One of the Left’s great strengths is their imposition of Newspeak - and our passive acceptance of it. Words mean what the regime wants them to mean. Speech is violence. Men are women. War is peace. … https://t.co/KmwJ0csRCY

— Fabius Maximus (Ed.) (@FabiusMaximus01) March 31, 2023

Jacques Strap said:

---

The absurdity of this angle...three children are dead. Three of their caretakers are dead. They were murdered for the sin of minding their own business at their own school. And THIS is what @Reuters is worried about. https://t.co/bf8poGQHUC

— Kira (@RealKiraDavis) March 31, 2023

---

"KKK faces backlash after lynching"

Wangchung said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

---

They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

So you won't answer the question.

That's part of my point, actually.

We all know why that phrase was included.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War was to keep British (i.e. government) troops from seizing a privately-owned cannon.

The references in the Constitution to 'Letters of Marque' demonstrate that the founders not only understood that there were private individuals with their own warships, but set up rules on how to contract with such individuals to assist the US government when needed. The implication is that, yes, if you could make your own warship, your own tank, your own armed aircraft, if you could be responsible in your actions the founders had no worries about you.

There are a great many essays and quotes on the mind of our founders regarding weapons, and they are strongly consistent.

The Founders plainly refused to let the government decide what weapons the citizens could have for their use.

Every law restricting guns, ammunition by number, size or type is a slap in the face of the Founders of our country.

Right about now, some here will be hyperventilating over mass shootings, terrorism and every other phobia they have rolling around in their skulls. Some will claim my observation somehow excuses every crime committed with a weapon.

Our nation's founders had no trouble recognizing the inherent right of citizens to keep and use arms, while at the same time holding people accountable for their actions. During the Whiskey Rebellion, for example, the government under Washington arrested rioters who rose up against the government and seized the weapons they used, while notably not restricting the use and ownership of weapons by people not involved in the uprising.

We have plainly seen that gun laws do not work. Those damnable 'gun free zones' at schools, for example, only disarm innocent people who could otherwise defend themselves, and allow murderers to plan where they alone would be armed. Rules on magazine sizes, on how scary a gun can be and still be legal, or whether a person has to prove to the government's pleasure that they meet the definition of "need" are all useless in protecting innocent people, and serve only a tyrant's goals.

We need a long, serious discussion on guns, starting with the fact that the American right to a gun is - beyond argument - absolute unless that person has demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat, and if so, it is their specific actions which bring the consequence of arrest and incarceration, not the gun.

---

Let me explain: The use of the term "shall not be infringed" is neither unique nor noteworthy when comparing the right to bear arms with other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

I don't know why the used that phrase instead of any other similar language and it really doesn't matter.

---

"It's not unique despite it being the only time the phrase is used!" Wouldn't that be the definition of unique? Sounds like you just don't WANT it to be significant.

---

Same question for you: please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law… abridging the right to bear arms" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

Can a right be infringed upon in other ways than by congress? Say, a city ordinance?

---

In theory, a right could be infringed upon by any entity with any level of legal authority. However, the 2nd amendment had to be incorporated through the 14th amendment for it to apply to any of those entities other than the federal government. Before it was explicitly incorporated via the 14th amendment, it was explicitly the law that it did not apply to any legal entity other than Congress.

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress." (United States v. Cruikshank).

Later, "Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller." (McDonald v. City of Chicago)

Quite obviously, the language of the 2nd amendment did not grant the right to bear arms any special status as a right when compared with other rights laid out in the constitution which, similarly, had to be incorporated via the 14th amendment to apply to entities other than the federal government.

As @POTUS has said, transgender youth are the bravest people we know – and should have the freedom to live their lives free from political attacks.
 
To transgender folks across the country: this Administration has your back.

— Karine Jean-Pierre (@PressSec) March 31, 2023

D. C. Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

---

They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

So you won't answer the question.

That's part of my point, actually.

We all know why that phrase was included.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War was to keep British (i.e. government) troops from seizing a privately-owned cannon.

The references in the Constitution to 'Letters of Marque' demonstrate that the founders not only understood that there were private individuals with their own warships, but set up rules on how to contract with such individuals to assist the US government when needed. The implication is that, yes, if you could make your own warship, your own tank, your own armed aircraft, if you could be responsible in your actions the founders had no worries about you.

There are a great many essays and quotes on the mind of our founders regarding weapons, and they are strongly consistent.

The Founders plainly refused to let the government decide what weapons the citizens could have for their use.

Every law restricting guns, ammunition by number, size or type is a slap in the face of the Founders of our country.

Right about now, some here will be hyperventilating over mass shootings, terrorism and every other phobia they have rolling around in their skulls. Some will claim my observation somehow excuses every crime committed with a weapon.

Our nation's founders had no trouble recognizing the inherent right of citizens to keep and use arms, while at the same time holding people accountable for their actions. During the Whiskey Rebellion, for example, the government under Washington arrested rioters who rose up against the government and seized the weapons they used, while notably not restricting the use and ownership of weapons by people not involved in the uprising.

We have plainly seen that gun laws do not work. Those damnable 'gun free zones' at schools, for example, only disarm innocent people who could otherwise defend themselves, and allow murderers to plan where they alone would be armed. Rules on magazine sizes, on how scary a gun can be and still be legal, or whether a person has to prove to the government's pleasure that they meet the definition of "need" are all useless in protecting innocent people, and serve only a tyrant's goals.

We need a long, serious discussion on guns, starting with the fact that the American right to a gun is - beyond argument - absolute unless that person has demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat, and if so, it is their specific actions which bring the consequence of arrest and incarceration, not the gun.

---

Let me explain: The use of the term "shall not be infringed" is neither unique nor noteworthy when comparing the right to bear arms with other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

I don't know why the used that phrase instead of any other similar language and it really doesn't matter.

---

"It's not unique despite it being the only time the phrase is used!" Wouldn't that be the definition of unique? Sounds like you just don't WANT it to be significant.

---

Same question for you: please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law… abridging the right to bear arms" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

Can a right be infringed upon in other ways than by congress? Say, a city ordinance?

---

In theory, a right could be infringed upon by any entity with any level of legal authority. However, the 2nd amendment had to be incorporated through the 14th amendment for it to apply to any of those entities other than the federal government. Before it was explicitly incorporated via the 14th amendment, it was explicitly the law that it did not apply to any legal entity other than Congress.

"The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress." (United States v. Cruikshank).

Later, "Unless considerations of stare decisis counsel otherwise, a provision of the Bill of Rights that protects a right that is fundamental from an American perspective applies equally to the Federal Government and the States. We therefore hold that the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates the Second Amendment right recognized in Heller." (McDonald v. City of Chicago)

Quite obviously, the language of the 2nd amendment did not grant the right to bear arms any special status as a right when compared with other rights laid out in the constitution which, similarly, had to be incorporated via the 14th amendment to apply to entities other than the federal government.

---

All developments that had to happen AFTER the writing of the second amendment and subsequent challenges to the authority of "shall not be infringed." It's still a unique statement of authority.

When our Franco comes and journalists start getting arrested in the middle of the night, just know that half this nation will cheer. The American media is an evil force. https://t.co/7e9XSZd1wE

— Jesse Kelly (@JesseKellyDC) March 31, 2023

The positive PR campaign they’re giving a child killer is really something else pic.twitter.com/dX4jTS7hYb

— “Bad” Billy Pratt (@KILLTOPARTY) March 31, 2023

Wangchung said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Wangchung said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

D. C. Bear said:

---

Oldbear83 said:

---

Contrario: " I personally don't view"

And that's the key phrase.

And yet again, only the Second Amendment specifically has the phrase 'shall not be infringed'.

So I ask yet again, what does that phrase mean in that context, and why is it specifically written that way?

---

First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law." This is a distinction without a difference.

---

So you think the Founders were, what , riffing when they chose the language they did?


I do not.

All those volumes of The Federalist, for example, show there was a great deal of debate about these words.

So once again, why was that specific phrase included in the Second Amendment?

---

They could have used "Congress shall make no law,,, abridging the right to bear arms," as they did with speech, and it wouldn't have a different meaning. If you think it would, please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law, abridging the right to bear arms" and" the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

So you won't answer the question.

That's part of my point, actually.

We all know why that phrase was included.

The first battle of the Revolutionary War was to keep British (i.e. government) troops from seizing a privately-owned cannon.

The references in the Constitution to 'Letters of Marque' demonstrate that the founders not only understood that there were private individuals with their own warships, but set up rules on how to contract with such individuals to assist the US government when needed. The implication is that, yes, if you could make your own warship, your own tank, your own armed aircraft, if you could be responsible in your actions the founders had no worries about you.

There are a great many essays and quotes on the mind of our founders regarding weapons, and they are strongly consistent.

The Founders plainly refused to let the government decide what weapons the citizens could have for their use.

Every law restricting guns, ammunition by number, size or type is a slap in the face of the Founders of our country.

Right about now, some here will be hyperventilating over mass shootings, terrorism and every other phobia they have rolling around in their skulls. Some will claim my observation somehow excuses every crime committed with a weapon.

Our nation's founders had no trouble recognizing the inherent right of citizens to keep and use arms, while at the same time holding people accountable for their actions. During the Whiskey Rebellion, for example, the government under Washington arrested rioters who rose up against the government and seized the weapons they used, while notably not restricting the use and ownership of weapons by people not involved in the uprising.

We have plainly seen that gun laws do not work. Those damnable 'gun free zones' at schools, for example, only disarm innocent people who could otherwise defend themselves, and allow murderers to plan where they alone would be armed. Rules on magazine sizes, on how scary a gun can be and still be legal, or whether a person has to prove to the government's pleasure that they meet the definition of "need" are all useless in protecting innocent people, and serve only a tyrant's goals.

We need a long, serious discussion on guns, starting with the fact that the American right to a gun is - beyond argument - absolute unless that person has demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat, and if so, it is their specific actions which bring the consequence of arrest and incarceration, not the gun.

---

Let me explain: The use of the term "shall not be infringed" is neither unique nor noteworthy when comparing the right to bear arms with other rights outlined in the Bill of Rights.

I don't know why the used that phrase instead of any other similar language and it really doesn't matter.

---

"It's not unique despite it being the only time the phrase is used!" Wouldn't that be the definition of unique? Sounds like you just don't WANT it to be significant.

---

Same question for you: please explain how you would draw a legal distinction between "Congress shall make no law… abridging the right to bear arms" and "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

---

Can a right be infringed upon in other ways than by congress? Say, a city ordinance?

---

Sure.
Right to free speech is subject to time place and manner restrictions.
Property rights can be infringed by zoning and condemnation proceedings.
Second Amendment is subject to local governments' requirements

Pastor walks back claim Audrey Hale was undergoing counseling with man whose daughter she killed


A former pastor at the school where Nashville shooter Audrey Hale killed six people on Monday claimed she was being couseled by Chad Scruggs, the father of one of the victims, only to later say he had been mistaken.
Jim Bachmann said in an interview with Inside Edition that Hale appeared to be searching for Scruggs, the current pastor at the Covenant School, in surveillance footage the police released.
However, when approached by The Post on Wednesday, Bachmann said he had since realized he was wrong.
"I understand that they were not counseling, actually," Bachmann said.
"I think there's just some confusion because she had, years earlier.
"But these last two days, I've had several messages from an assortment of people that not only was there no counseling between those two, that he didn't even know her," Bachmann said.
Bachmann confirmed that representatives from Covenant, a private Christian school, had been in touch to tell him him he was incorrect, and added that he had been influenced by social media and the way he had perceived surveillance video of Hale released by the police.
He added that since making the claims, he had been contacted by various people who worked at the school who had assured him that Scruggs was not counseling Hale.
One of Hale's victims was 9-year-old Hallie Scruggs, the current pastor's daughter.
https://nypost.com/2023/03/30/audrey-hale-counseled-by-pastor-whose-daughter-she-killed/?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=SocialFlow&utm_source=NYPTwitter

DC "You are arguing that the 2nd amendment wording is special, aren't you? I am arguing that its wording does not make it unique or special among other rights listed in the constitution"

Then explain why that phrase is there.

Come on, this is the Constitutional Convention that wrote this, not a high school girl sending a text to their friends about gossip.

Everything was carefully planned out, but you want to ignore that phrase.

It is there for a reason. If you disagree with my opinion, explain why it's there, because pretending it doesn't mean anything is piss poor logic, sir.

Go change your tampon before reading this one, pal.

Consider this.

When Ted Kaczynski went cray cray, he started building bombs. Obviously, the Unabomber broke many laws when he mailed out those explosives, but right up to the time he left his cabin to send them, he had broken no laws of the time, even up to building bombs.

Now many of the parts used to make those bombs can still be obtained easily and legally Which makes more sense, then:

1) outlaw anything that might conceivably be made into a bomb, even if well over 98% of uses for those things are good and fine, or

2) Focus on the behavior and profile individuals who would do things like build bombs?

My point is, you are still obsessing on guns as if they - by existing - are terrible things which must be controlled when they cannot be banned. We already know that doesn't work, by the way.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Go change your tampon before reading this one, pal.

Consider this.

When Ted Kaczynski went cray cray, he started building bombs. Obviously, the Unabomber broke many laws when he mailed out those explosives, but right up to the time he left his cabin to send them, he had broken no laws of the time, even up to building bombs.

Now many of the parts used to make those bombs can still be obtained easily and legally Which makes more sense, then:

1) outlaw anything that might conceivably be made into a bomb, even if well over 98% of uses for those things are good and fine, or

2) Focus on the behavior and profile individuals who would do things like build bombs?

My point is, you are still obsessing on guns as if they - by existing - are terrible things which must be controlled when they cannot be banned. We already know that doesn't work, by the way.

---

You didn't answer many of my questions. For someone who says they want to have a "long serious discussion" you sure avoid answering a lot of people's questions.

Where do you stand on some of the other restrictions that were newly created by the gun control act of 1968 - namely gun purchases by minors and possession of guns by those deemed to be mentally unfit?

I see you are pro tank, warship, and military aircraft. What is your stance on chemical weapons and plutonium and other military grade radioactive materials?

When you say a person has "demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat", does that include making multiple public statements? For example, could someone who is diagnosed bipolar or someone with extensive ties to terrorist organizations but hasn't yet been convicted of any crimes involving hurting another person make numerous public statements that they are going to blow up the White House legally purchase plastic explosives?

You offered up the idea of "focusing on the profile" but earlier stated "demonstrated by their actions that they are a threat". Those aren't necessarily the same thing.

Please answer the questions and clarify.

Oldbear83 said:

---

Go change your tampon before reading this one, pal.

Consider this.

When Ted Kaczynski went cray cray, he started building bombs. Obviously, the Unabomber broke many laws when he mailed out those explosives, but right up to the time he left his cabin to send them, he had broken no laws of the time, even up to building bombs.

Now many of the parts used to make those bombs can still be obtained easily and legally Which makes more sense, then:

1) outlaw anything that might conceivably be made into a bomb, even if well over 98% of uses for those things are good and fine, or

2) Focus on the behavior and profile individuals who would do things like build bombs?

My point is, you are still obsessing on guns as if they - by existing - are terrible things which must be controlled when they cannot be banned. We already know that doesn't work, by the way.

---

What in my post supports your contention that I was ever "obsessing about guns," never mind that I am "still" doing that? Be specific, and quit acting like an *******.

Jack Bauer said:

---

The guy in blue is an obvious plant to cause trouble and should have been arrested.

MAYHEM: Protesters in the Tennessee Capitol blocked a bathroom doorway, preventing a legislator from exiting.

Then the state troopers got involved. My footage with @BreitbartNews: pic.twitter.com/nvus4962XE

— Spencer Lindquist 🇺🇸 (@SpencerLndqst) March 30, 2023

---

It is past time to call in the National Guard on Soros' narcissistic children.