I agree with most on this issue that a background check is not an infringement of the 2nd amendment yet you call me names. Ego, vanity, frustrated, unable to communicate, or do you just like to verbally attack when stumped. Have you considered that you may be wrong here that maybe you don't understand the issue?
Knockout "Game" Not New, Media Cover Up Not Either
- Thread starter AAAintheBeltway
- Start date
It's an infringement no matter how many may agree it's an acceptable infringement.
Seriously? Shall I pull up some of your posts and show what a two faced chicken shit hypocrite you're being?
In your typical inept fashion you're trying to make this about me or about what the (mostly ignorant) majority think.
Another brilliant post Lucrum. Yet you still never argued your point except because you say so and the usual cursing and name calling to highlight your inability to argue your opinion. Funny how you think you're smarter than everyone else not just me. At least I'm in good company with the Supreme Court justices, most legal scholars and the majority of educated Americans.
Actually dumb ass I did, repeatedly. Your lack of reading comprehension isn't my problem.
Show me where I've said this. YOU are the one who keeps spouting off about his supposed IQ.
Now you're just making stuff up as you go.
1)the court isn't always right, you said so yourself
2)you also said you're not a legal scholar
3)you're not particularly well educated either
Did you ever actually look up the definition of the word infringement?
Webster defines words.
For the most part the court interprets the Constitution, and it's interpretations have changed over the years.
Is requiring photo ID an "infringement" of voting rights?
Lefties don't get it. Rights are "inalienable"... not subject to anyone's approval.
Wheelbarrow doesn't even know what's he arguing.
A right guaranteed without infringement. That the government requires licensing, permits, taxes, background checks and all manner of other hoops to be jumped through. Before the citizen is allowed to exercise that right. Is a right being infringed upon. The fact certain people, courts or even a majority happen to currently approve of the infringements. Does not mean they're no longer infringements, they're just currently approved and or agreed upon infringements.
I think they get it. They're just so screwed up mentally, they want to harm the very Constitution that makes it possible to express their lunacy. It's wild. I offer these loons all the time that they can always move to a country such as Cuba who thinks like they do, but for some reason, none want to do that.