Gun Control 2022 (IV) - Gun Rights, Control, & Government

[Grinning Dragon]

Violence is a sin!

Kulaka mulaka ge sai lai lufte de santra mekitu ya koya sabu koya be moma koya ya keya zabooba!

Sorry chap, but do you mind terribly posting that second part in English?

He's been given a day off for spamming.
however this is what I got running it through a translator. "Hausa"

Take care you have to learn me how to do that or not.

[Grinning Dragon]

Good lord, these fucking cunts just don't quit.
Below the Radar: HR 2671 – The Flamethrowers? Really? Act 2020

Sometimes, anti-Second Amendment legislation can be beyond pointless and almost to the point of satire. One such bill is HR 2671, titled the Flamethrowers? Really? Act, introduced by Representative Eliot Engel (D-NY).

Now, one reason this bill is flying under the radar is that flamethrowers just haven’t been misused in crimes, nor have they been in the news. In addition, Engel is not exactly known for pushing gun control, although he has a terrible voting record.

So, what is up with this legislation? According to the text, it regulates flamethrowers like machine guns. The real answer is that it is a very diabolical trap for Second Amendment supporters. A trap that mirrors the ones that have been used in the past 35 years, sometimes to significant effect in convincing our fellow Americans to back the unjust infringements of liberty that the likes of Michael Bloomberg want to inflict on us.

To understand the nature of this trap, we need to go back to the 1980s. Back then, anti-Second Amendment extremists were making a lot of noise about “cop-killer bullets” and “plastic guns” in order to gain traction after California rejected a handgun ban in a 1982 referendum. Handgun Control, Inc. drafted some very poorly-written legislation that ended up being far more sweeping than they let on.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Good lord, these fucking cunts just don't quit.
Below the Radar: HR 2671 – The Flamethrowers? Really? Act 2020

Sometimes, anti-Second Amendment legislation can be beyond pointless and almost to the point of satire. One such bill is HR 2671, titled the Flamethrowers? Really? Act, introduced by Representative Eliot Engel (D-NY).

Now, one reason this bill is flying under the radar is that flamethrowers just haven’t been misused in crimes, nor have they been in the news. In addition, Engel is not exactly known for pushing gun control, although he has a terrible voting record.

So, what is up with this legislation? According to the text, it regulates flamethrowers like machine guns. The real answer is that it is a very diabolical trap for Second Amendment supporters. A trap that mirrors the ones that have been used in the past 35 years, sometimes to significant effect in convincing our fellow Americans to back the unjust infringements of liberty that the likes of Michael Bloomberg want to inflict on us.

To understand the nature of this trap, we need to go back to the 1980s. Back then, anti-Second Amendment extremists were making a lot of noise about “cop-killer bullets” and “plastic guns” in order to gain traction after California rejected a handgun ban in a 1982 referendum. Handgun Control, Inc. drafted some very poorly-written legislation that ended up being far more sweeping than they let on.

Yes, lets ban something that literally isn't used in crime.. for the sake of the children (TM) no less.

These types of people are going to have a very rude awaking one day when they finally push the common person too far.

[Grinning Dragon]

Good lord, these fucking cunts just don't quit.
Below the Radar: HR 2671 – The Flamethrowers? Really? Act 2020

Yes, lets ban something that literally isn't used in crime.. for the sake of the children (TM) no less.

These types of people are going to have a very rude awaking one day when they finally push the common person too far.

Their lives must really suck balls if a congress critter has to stoop so low as to throw out a flame thrower bill such as this. Then again, their hatred for anything remotely constitutional is well known.

[Paddy O Fernature]

Yes, lets ban something that literally isn't used in crime.. for the sake of the children (TM) no less.

These types of people are going to have a very rude awaking one day when they finally push the common person too far.

Their lives must really suck balls if a congress critter has to stoop so low as to throw out a flame thrower bill such as this. Then again, their hatred for anything remotely constitutional is well known.

It's almost like these turds propose bullshit such as this because they literally have no point existing anymore and must justify their mere existence somehow...

[Grinning Dragon]

Their lives must really suck balls if a congress critter has to stoop so low as to throw out a flame thrower bill such as this. Then again, their hatred for anything remotely constitutional is well known.

It's almost like these turds propose bullshit such as this because they literally have no point existing anymore and must justify their mere existence somehow...

Well come on it's Engel, the guy is just barely smarter than aoc but still dumber than a marshmallow.

[Paddy O Fernature]

It's almost like these turds propose bullshit such as this because they literally have no point existing anymore and must justify their mere existence somehow...

Well come on it's Engel, the guy is just barely smarter than aoc but still dumber than a marshmallow.

Fair point.

[The Two Jerseys]

So is there going to be pushback against secession this time around, or are the urban "liberals" going to be enthusiastically onboard with all the Evil Republican states leaving the Union?

[Paddy O Fernature]

So is there going to be pushback against secession this time around, or are the urban "liberals" going to be enthusiastically onboard with all the Evil Republican states leaving the Union?

You know full well the left wouldn't be on board for it to happen on the simple fact that the cities would collapse under their own weight if cutoff from outside support.

[The Two Jerseys]

So is there going to be pushback against secession this time around, or are the urban "liberals" going to be enthusiastically onboard with all the Evil Republican states leaving the Union?

You know full well the left wouldn't be on board for it to happen on the simple fact that the cities would collapse under their own weight if cutoff from outside support.

Remember kids, the right to self-determination only applies to people in other countries!

[Kernen]

Violence is a sin!

Kulaka mulaka ge sai lai lufte de santra mekitu ya koya sabu koya be moma koya ya keya zabooba!

No it isn't.

Even if it was, the concept of sin and the concepts of rights are entirely disassociated from each other. If violence is against your religion, don't engage in it and leave off us.

[Grinning Dragon]

No it isn't.

Even if it was, the concept of sin and the concepts of rights are entirely disassociated from each other. If violence is against your religion, don't engage in it and leave off us.

My thoughts as well.

Edit.
The more I think of this, the more so it irks me, as if religion is in any way a reason to infringe upon a negative right. Religion/religious canon must always take a back seat to natural/negative individual rights.

[Pax Nerdvana]

So is there going to be pushback against secession this time around, or are the urban "liberals" going to be enthusiastically onboard with all the Evil Republican states leaving the Union?

You know full well the left wouldn't be on board for it to happen on the simple fact that the cities would collapse under their own weight if cutoff from outside support.

That's the problem with cities. They're not self-sufficent. It's also why we lost the Vietnam War.

[Cantelo]

You know full well the left wouldn't be on board for it to happen on the simple fact that the cities would collapse under their own weight if cutoff from outside support.

Remember kids, the right to self-determination only applies to people in other countries!

Didn't we have a Civil War over this with the end result being US states don't have a right to self-determination?

[The Emerald Legion]

Remember kids, the right to self-determination only applies to people in other countries!

Didn't we have a Civil War over this with the end result being US states don't have a right to self-determination?

No? We had a civil war over slavery and the Confederate states being aggressive shitheads about the secession.

[Cantelo]

Didn't we have a Civil War over this with the end result being US states don't have a right to self-determination?

No? We had a civil war over slavery and the Confederate states being aggressive shitheads about the secession.

Actually yes. Texas v. White (1869) ended with the Supreme Court saying states do not have a right to secede, any secession is illegal and, as far as the Constitution is "aware," the Confederate states never actually seceded in the first place and had always remained as US states.

[The Emerald Legion]

No? We had a civil war over slavery and the Confederate states being aggressive shitheads about the secession.

Actually yes. Texas v. White (1869) ended with the Supreme Court saying states do not have a right to secede, any secession is illegal and, as far as the Constitution is "aware," the Confederate states never actually seceded in the first place and had always remained as US states.

The supreme Court says a lot of dumb things. Like how it's upheld that the federal government has the power to regulate ALL COMMERCE because by not selling things across state boundaries you're having an effect on interstate commerce.

[The Empire of Pretantia]

No? We had a civil war over slavery and the Confederate states being aggressive shitheads about the secession.

Actually yes. Texas v. White (1869) ended with the Supreme Court saying states do not have a right to secede, any secession is illegal and, as far as the Constitution is "aware," the Confederate states never actually seceded in the first place and had always remained as US states.

This doesn't actually answer the question of why the civil war was fought. It answers the question whether secession is constitutional.

[Cantelo]

Actually yes. Texas v. White (1869) ended with the Supreme Court saying states do not have a right to secede, any secession is illegal and, as far as the Constitution is "aware," the Confederate states never actually seceded in the first place and had always remained as US states.

The supreme Court says a lot of dumb things. Like how it's upheld that the federal government has the power to regulate ALL COMMERCE because by not selling things across state boundaries you're having an effect on interstate commerce.

lol okay so the branch of government that is tasked with interpreting the Constitution is stupid now because they made a ruling contrary to what you claimed. Absolutely solid logic and integrity, you should run for office.

[The Emerald Legion]

The supreme Court says a lot of dumb things. Like how it's upheld that the federal government has the power to regulate ALL COMMERCE because by not selling things across state boundaries you're having an effect on interstate commerce.

lol okay so the branch of government that is tasked with interpreting the Constitution is stupid now because they made a ruling contrary to what you claimed. Absolutely solid logic and integrity, you should run for office.

When said branch consistently ignores the constitutions tenets in favor of political expediency? Yes.

The Civil War was not started until the Confederate states started attacking Union held forts.

[Cantelo]

lol okay so the branch of government that is tasked with interpreting the Constitution is stupid now because they made a ruling contrary to what you claimed. Absolutely solid logic and integrity, you should run for office.

When said branch consistently ignores the constitutions tenets in favor of political expediency? Yes.

The Civil War was not started until the Confederate states started attacking Union held forts.

The Confederacy just quickened the reaction time of the US when it attacked Sumter, it was inevitable that the Union was gonna suplex them in the not-too-distant future (relevant to when they attacked)

[Aclion]

No? We had a civil war over slavery and the Confederate states being aggressive shitheads about the secession.

Actually yes. Texas v. White (1869) ended with the Supreme Court saying states do not have a right to secede, any secession is illegal and, as far as the Constitution is "aware," the Confederate states never actually seceded in the first place and had always remained as US states.

[The Emerald Legion]

When said branch consistently ignores the constitutions tenets in favor of political expediency? Yes.

The Civil War was not started until the Confederate states started attacking Union held forts.

The Confederacy just quickened the reaction time of the US when it attacked Sumter, it was inevitable that the Union was gonna suplex them in the not-too-distant future (relevant to when they attacked)

Possible, but we can't know how the Union would have reacted to a more diplomatic and less jingoistic Confederacy.

[Cantelo]

Actually yes. Texas v. White (1869) ended with the Supreme Court saying states do not have a right to secede, any secession is illegal and, as far as the Constitution is "aware," the Confederate states never actually seceded in the first place and had always remained as US states.

Le epic movie reference, absolutely DESTROYED my argument

[Cantelo]

The Confederacy just quickened the reaction time of the US when it attacked Sumter, it was inevitable that the Union was gonna suplex them in the not-too-distant future (relevant to when they attacked)

Possible, but we can't know how the Union would have reacted to a more diplomatic and less jingoistic Confederacy.

Lincoln wanted to keep the Union together at all costs. That should tell you the approach that the United States had towards the insurrection. All that the attack on Fort Sumter did was tell Lincoln he needed to haul ass on a response to the rebellion.