2019-2020 US Elections Megathread I- It Begins

[Washington Resistance Army]

I'm not a Democrat though.

Not all Democrats or liberals are anti-gun, and even if there was a super-majority of Democrats in the government, them repealing the Second Amendment is highly unlikely.

They don't need to repeal the 2A to permanently fuck our rights.

[Telconi]

I'm not a Democrat though.

Not all Democrats or liberals are anti-gun, and even if there was a super-majority of Democrats in the government, them repealing the Second Amendment is highly unlikely.

The platform is paranoia Anti-gun, ergo, yes, supporting it is paranoia Anti-gun.

A 2nd amendment repeal's likelihood is utterly irrelevant to the functioning of the amendment.

[The Rich Port]

Not all Democrats or liberals are anti-gun, and even if there was a super-majority of Democrats in the government, them repealing the Second Amendment is highly unlikely.

They don't need to repeal the 2A to permanently fuck our rights.

So you argue against it and petition your local politicians and debate it. If the evidence is there, we have nothing to worry about.

You don't jump under the Trump Semi-Fascism Bus and compromise EVERYTHING ELSE you believe in.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Not all Democrats or liberals are anti-gun, and even if there was a super-majority of Democrats in the government, them repealing the Second Amendment is highly unlikely.

They don't need to repeal the 2A to permanently fuck our rights.

Technically, your individual right to arms is not a very originalist interpretation of the amendment. Not that I’m against the individual right to arms mind you.

[Washington Resistance Army]

They don't need to repeal the 2A to permanently fuck our rights.

So you argue against it and petition your local politicians and debate it. If the evidence is there, we have nothing to worry about.

That is not how this "debate" works lol

[Telconi]

They don't need to repeal the 2A to permanently fuck our rights.

So you argue against it and petition your local politicians and debate it. If the evidence is there, we have nothing to worry about.

You don't jump under the Trump Semi-Fascism Bus and compromise EVERYTHING ELSE you believe in.

What "evidence" are we talking about?

Some things are worth more than others.

[Washington Resistance Army]

They don't need to repeal the 2A to permanently fuck our rights.

Technically, your individual right to arms is not a very originalist interpretation of the amendment. Not that I’m against the individual right to arms mind you.

Oh but it is, and there's plenty of evidence it is.

[Telconi]

They don't need to repeal the 2A to permanently fuck our rights.

Technically, your individual right to arms is not a very originalist interpretation of the amendment. Not that I’m against the individual right to arms mind you.

And how do you come to that conclusion?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Technically, your individual right to arms is not a very originalist interpretation of the amendment. Not that I’m against the individual right to arms mind you.

Oh but it is, and there's plenty of evidence it is.

Please show me, I’d like to understand this. (Not doubting you either just expanding my knowledge).

[The Rich Port]

So you argue against it and petition your local politicians and debate it. If the evidence is there, we have nothing to worry about.

That is not how this "debate" works lol

Says you, but you don't believe liberals can be pro-Second Amendment.

If it were that easy to deprive us of Second Amendment rights, why hasn't it been done, locally or nationally?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Technically, your individual right to arms is not a very originalist interpretation of the amendment. Not that I’m against the individual right to arms mind you.

And how do you come to that conclusion?

The right to arms goes hand in hand with the ability of the states to form militias to defend the nation against foreign aggression, which is why until World War 1 the United States relied on state militias and national guard forces. Also why before Heller the 2nd amendent only applied the federal government.

[Washington Resistance Army]

Oh but it is, and there's plenty of evidence it is.

Please show me, I’d like to understand this. (Not doubting you either just expanding my knowledge).

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=439114&p=34765683&hilit=potato#p34765683

That is not how this "debate" works lol

Says you, but you don't believe liberals can be pro-Second Amendment.

If it were that easy to deprive us of Second Amendment rights, why hasn't it been done, locally or nationally?

I have no problems believing liberals can be pro-2A, but the vast majority are not.

It has been done both locally and nationally.

[Telconi]

That is not how this "debate" works lol

Says you, but you don't believe liberals can be pro-Second Amendment.

If it were that easy to deprive us of Second Amendment rights, why hasn't it been done, locally or nationally?

Uh, it has...

[Page]

I'm not a Democrat though.

Not all Democrats or liberals are anti-gun, and even if there was a super-majority of Democrats in the government, them repealing the Second Amendment is highly unlikely.

If the Democrats had a super majority in Congress, the White House, and all 50 governor's seats, I still guarantee a Second Amendment repeal would never happen.

[Telconi]

And how do you come to that conclusion?

The right to arms goes hand in hand with the ability of the states to form militias to defend the nation against foreign aggression, which is why until World War 1 the United States relied on state militias and national guard forces. Also why before Heller the 2nd amendent only applied the federal government.

No, it goes hand in hand with the ability of the people to form militias. And we see this quite obviously occur at various points throughout the nation's history. As for the 2nd only applying to the government pre-Heller, that's laughable. Well before Heller was decided, private citizens literally purchased, armed, and crewed naval vessels with their own personal employees to go and engage foreign nations in warfare.

[Telconi]

Not all Democrats or liberals are anti-gun, and even if there was a super-majority of Democrats in the government, them repealing the Second Amendment is highly unlikely.

If the Democrats had a super majority in Congress, the White House, and all 50 governor's seats, I still guarantee a Second Amendment repeal would never happen.

Which continues to be irrelevant.

[The Rich Port]

Says you, but you don't believe liberals can be pro-Second Amendment.

If it were that easy to deprive us of Second Amendment rights, why hasn't it been done, locally or nationally?

Uh, it has...

Source, then. Literally just googled "has there been a total gun ban in America".

Nowhere in the United States has there been a complete weapon ban, only regulation.

Frankly, if you need a license to operate a car, you should need a license to operate a gun.

[Telconi]

Uh, it has...

Source, then. Literally just googled "has there been a total gun ban in America".

Nowhere in the United States has there been a complete weapon ban, only regulation.

Frankly, if you need a license to operate a car, you should need a license to operate a gun.

Holy fuck, are those the goalposts on the horizon?

Seriously, it's impossible to violate a right without a total ban? If every newspaper were banned with the exception of Breitbart, that would be fine right? Because only a total ban constitutes infringement? What about every religion except for the Westboro Baptist Church? So long as one option remains there is no infringement of liberty?

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Please show me, I’d like to understand this. (Not doubting you either just expanding my knowledge).

viewtopic.php?f=20&t=439114&p=34765683&hilit=potato#p34765683

Thanks Wash, though to be fair, state declaration don't really matter outside the Constitution of the United States as per the Supremacy Clause.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

The right to arms goes hand in hand with the ability of the states to form militias to defend the nation against foreign aggression, which is why until World War 1 the United States relied on state militias and national guard forces. Also why before Heller the 2nd amendent only applied the federal government.

No, it goes hand in hand with the ability of the people to form militias. And we see this quite obviously occur at various points throughout the nation's history. As for the 2nd only applying to the government pre-Heller, that's laughable. Well before Heller was decided, private citizens literally purchased, armed, and crewed naval vessels with their own personal employees to go and engage foreign nations in warfare.

Not laughable at all, before Heller, the individual right to bear arms was not a federally protected right. Therefore SCOTUS changed the original meaning of the amendment and it becomes un-originalist.

[The Rich Port]

Source, then. Literally just googled "has there been a total gun ban in America".

Nowhere in the United States has there been a complete weapon ban, only regulation.

Frankly, if you need a license to operate a car, you should need a license to operate a gun.

Holy fuck, are those the goalposts on the horizon?

Seriously, it's impossible to violate a right without a total ban? If every newspaper were banned with the exception of Breitbart, that would be fine right? Because only a total ban constitutes infringement? What about every religion except for the Westboro Baptist Church? So long as one option remains there is no infringement of liberty?

So you're telling me... That the government took our guns away... But they didn't take our guns away?

Frankly, yes, I don't agree with the automatic fire ban. However, that isn't a gun ban.

Also, the automatic weapon ban is a joke that is easily circumvented.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... s-shooting

[Washington Resistance Army]

No, it goes hand in hand with the ability of the people to form militias. And we see this quite obviously occur at various points throughout the nation's history. As for the 2nd only applying to the government pre-Heller, that's laughable. Well before Heller was decided, private citizens literally purchased, armed, and crewed naval vessels with their own personal employees to go and engage foreign nations in warfare.

Not laughable at all, before Heller, the individual right to bear arms was not a federally protected right. Therefore SCOTUS changed the original meaning of the amendment and it becomes un-originalist.

14th Amendment changes everything friendo

So you're telling me... That the government took our guns away... But they didn't take our guns away?

No they've actually just taken his guns away. Telconi has the misfortune to be from California.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... s-shooting

Fwiw most of the guns used in the actual shooting didn't have bumpstocks but were shown to have a mixture of DIAS and rudimentary pin holes drilled.

[Western Vale Confederacy]

Holy fuck, are those the goalposts on the horizon?

Seriously, it's impossible to violate a right without a total ban? If every newspaper were banned with the exception of Breitbart, that would be fine right? Because only a total ban constitutes infringement? What about every religion except for the Westboro Baptist Church? So long as one option remains there is no infringement of liberty?

So you're telling me... That the government took our guns away... But they didn't take our guns away?

Frankly, yes, I don't agree with the automatic fire ban. However, that isn't a gun ban.

Also, the automatic weapon ban is a joke that is easily circumvented.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... s-shooting

Banning automatic weapons IS a weapons ban, though...

Also, the AR-15 isn't automatic, nor an "assault weapon" (which is a clueless corruption of the term "assault rifle", and the AR-15 isn't even the latter).

Also, news source other than Vox, please.

[Telconi]

Holy fuck, are those the goalposts on the horizon?

Seriously, it's impossible to violate a right without a total ban? If every newspaper were banned with the exception of Breitbart, that would be fine right? Because only a total ban constitutes infringement? What about every religion except for the Westboro Baptist Church? So long as one option remains there is no infringement of liberty?

So you're telling me... That the government took our guns away... But they didn't take our guns away?

Frankly, yes, I don't agree with the automatic fire ban. However, that isn't a gun ban.

Also, the automatic weapon ban is a joke that is easily circumvented.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... s-shooting

I don't believe this is causing you this amount of trouble.

Automatic guns aren't guns?

Shittily enforced tyranny is still tyranny.

[The Greater Ohio Valley]

Not laughable at all, before Heller, the individual right to bear arms was not a federally protected right. Therefore SCOTUS changed the original meaning of the amendment and it becomes un-originalist.

14th Amendment changes everything friendo
.

I know, but IMO the Supremacy Clause should've applied the Bill of Rights to the states before then since the clause literally says the Constitution is the law of the land and above the states. Too bad SCOTUS and everyone else forgot about that.