Can Brandon be ANY dumber?
- Thread starter Capt Ron 1
- Start date
See, Biden is right, the 9mm will blow the lung right out of your body.
The Constitution IS the Constitution. We believe in it..you should try it. And not the point I was making. I agree that STATES can put certain limits. I stand by my statement...libs HAVE NO CLUE about war...or firearms. Not meaning to pick of you all...HELL...I know NOTHING about "man bun" styles...or trying to convince a man that he really is a woman...you guys have that WAY under control
The surgeon removed the lung because the artery was compromised and the lung was dying.
He got off the chair and onto the stretcher under his own power, and as he did so, the bullet fell out of the wound. It was stopped by the recliner cushion.
And what was the key precedent set in that case?
One thing is certain....he is either trolling...or VERY dim witted. But the FACT is that the second amendment is CRYSTAL CLEAR! Can the federal or state government make some changes to it..HELL yes...but it has to go through the legal channels. For instance...the automatic weapon ban. It is LAW. The point these little commie snowflakes try to hide is...they want ALL of our 2nd amendment rights, and it will NEVER pass. I want to see ANY of these little snowflakes try to come get my firearms! (or ANY of my friends)
He's ignorant once again.
He cherry picked one statement out of a much broader ruling with no context to prove a point, and he probably doesn't even know why it's total nonsense. As you say, the 2nd has been infringed with regards to certain types of weapons. I probably can't buy a nuclear warhead, an F-16 or a machine gun for example. Taken to the extreme what Scalia said means nothing.
That ruling, that case, set the precedent that the 2nd Amendment was intentioned to allow normal citizens to protect themselves. Before that case many lower courts interpreted it to only mean that firearms were a right in forming actual militias. This case made it clear that the Founding Fathers were intending the population to be able to protect themselves from tyrannical gov't or simply other threats that may come their way. It was a massive win for individual gun rights.
My unalienable rights come from God, not from anywhere else.
The Constitution says explicitly "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
(infringed - actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)
=====
For Bama, and I'm sure he already knows this, but for any that don't.
The GLOCK 21 gives you everything you would expect of a .45 ACP pistol. Countless law enforcement units swear by this superior pistol for more than just its above-average magazine capacity of 13 rounds. Standard models come with two 13-round magazines. Buy an extra. One in the gun, 2 in a pouch = 39 rounds. Keep one in the barrel and it goes to an even 40 rounds.
I don't like it because of the fat grip. Those with large hands do better with the high mag Glocks.
Grey, the same with the Glock 10mm that the local SWAT commander (his carry gun ) let me try at the range. Very heavy stinging hand recoil. I didn't like it.
The .45 ACP is considered body accurate out to 50 yds, and I've never missed the kill zone on a target from 25 yds. I qualified 'Marksman' the first time I ever shot a Colt .45 ACP in the military, but I saw others around me with recoil gun climb, shooting holes in the roof on the covered pistol line.... 😲
The .45 ACP is loaded to around 4.5 grains, easy to handle imo....
My Ruger Super Redhawk .454 Casull 7.5" barrel with a 4X Leupold is loaded to 22 grains. You better get a very firm grip, and keep your shoulder loose. This is not a rapid fire weapon by any means, but I'm good with it out to 100 yds.
It will also shoot .45 long colts (way cheaper range rounds) which has a very mild recoil in that heavy long barrel pistol.
BTW -- For any federal law enforcement reading here, I don't really own any guns at all, because they scare me and nobody should own any of those mean things anyway. I'm just talking it up with the real life tough guys here....
Last edited:
Aaaaaand that's why I carry a G30S. G36 thin slide on a G30SF frame.
15 in the mag and one in the pipe.
Last edited:
Well regulated...which means you can regulate right?My unalienable rights come from God, not from anywhere else.
The Constitution says explicitly "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"
(infringed - actively break the terms of (a law, agreement, etc.)
=====
For Bama, and I'm sure he already knows this, but for any that don't.
The GLOCK 21 gives you everything you would expect of a .45 ACP pistol. Countless law enforcement units swear by this superior pistol for more than just its above-average magazine capacity of 13 rounds. Standard models come with two 13-round magazines. Buy an extra. One in the gun, 2 in a pouch = 39 rounds. Keep one in the barrel and it goes to an even 40 rounds.
I don't like it because of the fat grip. Those with large hands do better with the high mag Glocks.
Grey, the same with the Glock 10mm that the local SWAT commander (his carry gun ) let me try at the range. Very heavy stinging hand recoil. I didn't like it.
The .45 ACP is considered body accurate out to 50 yds, and I've never missed the kill zone on a target from 25 yds. I qualified 'Marksman' the first time I ever shot a Colt .45 ACP in the military, but I saw others around me with recoil gun climb, shooting holes in the roof on the covered pistol line.... 😲
The .45 ACP is loaded to around 4.5 grains, easy to handle imo....
My Ruger Super Redhawk .454 Casull 7.5" barrel with a 4X Leupold is loaded to 22 grains. You better get a very firm grip, and keep your shoulder loose. This is not a rapid fire weapon by any means, but I'm good with it out to 100 yds.
It will also shoot .45 long colts (way cheaper range rounds) which has a very mild recoil in that heavy long barrel pistol.
BTW -- For any federal law enforcement reading here, I don't really own any guns at all, because they scare me and nobody should own any of those mean things anyway. I'm just talking it up with the real life tough guys here....
Libs can repeat the talking points, they can't defend them. This is why @kalimgoodman's claims are knocked over by a stiff breeze.
No dumbass. It means "in good order."
To answer OPs original question. I have faith that if any man can set a new daily standard for being dumb…..it’s Brandon.
The entire 2nd Amendment is one sentence. You're not making sense again.
To regulate doesn't mean to restrict in this instance, "shall not be infringed" would be oxymoronic if it did.
You can therefore lean on the power of context to realize that "regulate" means 'to bring to order or method' - the 'in good order' interpretation above is along those lines - not to restrict or limit.
That's one interpretation. Our you can regulate without restriction. Like you can have a car but you must register it. Plenty examples of regulating without restriction.
So….you have a RIGHT, but you still have to ask permission? Sorry, but no.
There is no constitutional right to own a car, but there is for guns.
Again, we are laughing at the ignorance of your posting.
Misinterpretation again I see. Or you just aren’t acknowledging that discussion already occurred.
Sad thing about the courts is that it will change. It's not about the constitution, it's about finding the right "judges" who view it the way you do.
Roe took 50 years, slavery took awhile and NY gun law was like 100 years. Nothing changed but the justices.
The well regulated militia is to counter the Public Servants Federal Army/Military.
The individual God given right to self protection is not a part of any militia.
We left England because the King mandated that ONLY his Knights could have a sword.
The 'draw & quarter' punishment was created for any peasant that got caught with a sword.
The sword was the primary individual weapon of the day, and it's what the King's Knights used to keep him in power over the peasants.
The founding fathers didn't want for the Knights/Army to be the only ones with a suitable weapon.
Back then, the musket was the weapon that the army had, so Sovereign Citizens also had muskets.
In today's world, the Sovereign Citizens should be able to have the same pistol/rifle that the Servants Army has, to protect our FREEDOMS from any possible TYRANTS threat to remove our Sovereign Freedoms.
Any law that the Public Servants try to shove down the Sovereign Citizens throats will be disregarded by the vast majority of the Free Sovereign Citizens,,, just as it should be.
When the Constitution was written, it was to REGULATE what part of the Sovereign Citizens Freedoms that they would ALLOW any federal government to have. It did not, and it does not, give a Sovereign Citizen any rights, it instead restricts what the Public Servants can do.
"From my cold dead hands" is not just a cute phrase, it's reality because Freedom has never been Free.....
The individual God given right to self protection is not a part of any militia.
We left England because the King mandated that ONLY his Knights could have a sword.
The 'draw & quarter' punishment was created for any peasant that got caught with a sword.
The sword was the primary individual weapon of the day, and it's what the King's Knights used to keep him in power over the peasants.
The founding fathers didn't want for the Knights/Army to be the only ones with a suitable weapon.
Back then, the musket was the weapon that the army had, so Sovereign Citizens also had muskets.
In today's world, the Sovereign Citizens should be able to have the same pistol/rifle that the Servants Army has, to protect our FREEDOMS from any possible TYRANTS threat to remove our Sovereign Freedoms.
Any law that the Public Servants try to shove down the Sovereign Citizens throats will be disregarded by the vast majority of the Free Sovereign Citizens,,, just as it should be.
When the Constitution was written, it was to REGULATE what part of the Sovereign Citizens Freedoms that they would ALLOW any federal government to have. It did not, and it does not, give a Sovereign Citizen any rights, it instead restricts what the Public Servants can do.
"From my cold dead hands" is not just a cute phrase, it's reality because Freedom has never been Free.....
Your analogy sucks. Cars are not a constitutional right, and are both restricted and regulated. Try another.
Furthermore, let’s take a trip in the wayback to 6th grade English. The verb “regulated” modifies the noun “Militia”. You can’t pick a word out of thin air and make it apply to whatever you want it to. It’s in a certain order on purpose. That’s sort of how the English language works. Latin is different, the verb is most often the last word in the sentence, but we don’t communicate in Latin.
The well regulated militia is to counter the Public Servants Federal Army/Military.
The individual God given right to self protection is not a part of any militia.
We left England because the King mandated that ONLY his Knights could have a sword.
The 'draw & quarter' punishment was created for any peasant that got caught with a sword.
The sword was the primary individual weapon of the day, and it's what the King's Knights used to keep him in power over the peasants.
The founding fathers didn't want for the Knights/Army to be the only ones with a suitable weapon.
Back then, the musket was the weapon that the army had, so Sovereign Citizens also had muskets.
In today's world, the Sovereign Citizens should be able to have the same pistol/rifle that the Servants Army has, to protect our FREEDOMS from any possible TYRANTS threat to remove our Sovereign Freedoms.
Any law that the Public Servants try to shove down the Sovereign Citizens throats will be disregarded by the vast majority of the Free Sovereign Citizens,,, just as it should be.
When the Constitution was written, it was to REGULATE what part of the Sovereign Citizens Freedoms that they would ALLOW any federal government to have. It did not, and it does not, give a Sovereign Citizen any rights, it instead restricts what the Public Servants can do.
"From my cold dead hands" is not just a cute phrase, it's reality because Freedom has never been Free.....
The argument was what the word militia meant, not whether it was to be restricted which is different that regulated in this context.
The majority decision was that the Founders intended the “militia” to mean every able bodied citizen able to help defend the state. If you know anything about how the country was started this was clear. Context is important.
From the majority opinion:
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court's interpretation of the operative clause. The "militia" comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens' militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens' militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
Did you really post this? Please point to the constitution where the right to drive is stated. 😂
"Shall not be infringed" isn't ambiguous.
SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED is MUCH, MUCH clearer than well regulated militia. not even debatable
This makes me laugh at you. All that WE want is for judges to rule by the Constitution. Your side makes funny excuses as to what the Constitution says. YOUR side makes legal decisions by political agenda. Trump got THREE Constitutionalists approved. Perfect example is their ruling on R vs W. There is NO WHARE in the Constitution that approves, or disapproves of abortion...yet all the lib sissy snowflakes are SO DUMB, they do not know, or care. Be careful digging yourself in to a hole you cannot possibly get out of
Had one fall out of the victims jeans from her leg wound just last week. The bullet entered her thigh, hit the bone and ricocheted back out of her leg and was caught inside her pant leg.
Had another similar almost a year ago. Through and through chest wound but one round was caught by his flannel shirt on the way out.
Roe was bad law from its inception. It survived because it was a political 3rd rail.
Similar threads
