Shooting at Florida high school

that's because the politicians were in bait & switch mode trying to pass the least possible restrictions while claiming to have actually done something.

And STILL, statistically, that pathetic weak dog and pony show did SOME good.

the pussy grabbing never stops does it?

well they're Moonies so it hardly counts.

that ship has already sailed regardless

Oh, I think you're taking way too much for granted. I don't say that as a Trump-booster, but as a realist. Incumbents are hard to unseat, and Trump's doing a lot of good (perceived or real, doesn't matter) for the swing states that put him in office.

You think I give a shit, you disgusting tranny fuck?

I know you do. You keep replying.

I refer you back to Vietnam or Afghanistan, again.

ask and answered

There is a limit to free speech, so why not to gun ownership?

The Battle of Athens. A replay of which is a far, far more probable scenario than Trump revealing himself to be reincarnated Hitler.

That's awfully prideful.

At least you didn't criticize their choice of firearms, what would the gun-toting ladies of your flock think?

Like what?

Have you conveniently forgotten all the discussions we've had on what the term "regulated" meant when the Bill of Rights was written? It didn't mean controlled by the government.

I dunno. FDR opened internment camps, Wilson re-segregated the army, Lincoln suspended habeus corpus, Reagan have amnesty to millions, Clinton sold nuke tech to the Chinese, Reagan traded guns for hostages and Bush Sr threw up on a Japanese guy

So if the government makes it much more difficult for a person to vote such as requiring identification and even a fee then you would say your voting rights have "not been touched" either?

l

Oh come on. It's not as straight forward as that and you know it.

If you can't have a "sane discussion" with gun owners because they don't agree with you regarding what something as vaguely written as the 2nd Amendment means, then don't wast everybody's time by pretending you want one.

it sure as hell didn't mean "well equipped."

Webster

There is - you're also not supposed to shoot people in a crowded theater.

https://www.lectlaw.com/files/gun01.htm

you keep saying that, but haven't actually shown what "regulated" did (supposedly) mean in the late 18th century.

Give it to me in 3-5 bullet points.

How's that "insure domestic tranquility" and "providing for common defense" working out?

Seriously.... that's one of the longest non-answers I've ever read.

It's an interesting article. You should actually read it.

It’s biblical truth. To maintain the bonds of Christian fellowship, certain foundational doctrines must be agreed upon beforehand. One of those things is that Jesus Christ is the only begotten Son of God. Another is that they must believe in the Hypostatic Union.

The Unification Church believes in neither of those foundational principles which the vast and overwhelming majority of Christendom affirms.

Huh?

I did... it says nothing on the types of arms the unregulated citizenry has a right to bear, let alone what contains or compels their bearing.

About the only thing clear about a well regulated militia in this article is the claim that it isn't designed to be regulated - self regulating? seriously?

I mean, that seems to imply that Joe the Plumber can have his A-10 and an Abrams after all... y'all have been claiming forever that it only extended to personal arms, but this guy is saying something different here.

He points out that while the amendment says well regulated militias are vital, it doesn't say who should regulate it.

"The above analysis leads us finally to the term "well regulated." What did these two words mean at the time of ratification? Were they commonly used to refer to a governmental bureaucracy as we know it today, with countless rules and regulations and inspectors, or something quite different? We begin this analysis by examining how the term "regulate" was used elsewhere in the Constitution. In every other instance where the term "regulate" is used, or regulations are referred to, the Constitution specifies who is to do the regulating and what is being "regulated." However, in the Second Amendment, the Framers chose only to use the term "well regulated" to describe a militia and chose not to define who or what would regulate it."

If militias are to be regulated by the Federal government, then where in the Constitution does it say that militias are to be regulated by the Federal government? It would be a stronger argument that the responsibility would go to the State government under the 10th Amendment, but even then, why not just say that they're to be regulated by the State?

Still churchies.

https://wordforge.net/index.php?posts/3029253/

Two dead in shooting at Central Michigan University, shooter still at large.

Round and round and round we goes, we don't stop as long as NRA cash flows...

Yeah, limits that are constantly being opposed, and rightly so, by organizations like the ACLU and FIRE.