El Luchador
-
Posts
865 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
1
Content Type
Forums
Articles
Teams
College Commitments
Rankings
Authors
Jobs
Store
Everything posted by El Luchador
-
Not even close to the same level of deception. Especially when they give actual information that has to withstand scrutiny, and put their reputation on that information.
-
This one is accurate
-
Here's one we can all agree is real.
-
If there is anything we can trust it's a picture off the internet.
-
I have no idea what I just watched but it was hilarious. -
The Groomers stopped hiding their agenda.
-
If I said no, how would you enforce it? The truth is you can't and any attempt to do so would only harm people with legitimate use of fertilizer, and prevent zero acts of terror.
-
When they can do so without violation of the constitution, without passing useless laws that do more harm than good, and without total authoritarian government intrusions. You could outlaw fertilizer, but fertilizer feeds the world and the terrorists would just use an alternative method.
-
Answer my question so I can help your understanding. I don't know what's so hard to understand about my position, other than it's not what you want to hear. Maybe I should ask you what part of the constitution you would like to see violated.
-
What part of the constitution do need clarification on?
-
Only within the limitations of the constitution.
-
Arbitrary number. Literally would out law 99% of all guns, and solve nothing.
-
So do you want to prohibit diesel fuel, or fertilizer?
-
You prefer other poisons? Again you could never even come close to regulating everything that could be used as a poison. Phosgene gas can easily be made by anyone. So again you seek regulations that would be completely worthless. Forcing someone to change their weapons will never prevent any crime.
-
WMDs are not even remotely relevant. They are indiscriminate and uncontrollable. But let's be realistic, explosives are controlled as are chemicals, but it would take minimal effort to construct a significant explosive weapon. It happens all over the world in terrorism attacks. Where there is a will there will always be a way. Timothy McVeigh would not have been stopped by regulations, nor would Darrel Brooks have been. All that you can do is change up the method.
-
A Representative who wants to ban teaching unproven science, or one who wants to protect pedophiles? https://dailycaller.com/2023/04/26/minnesota-bill-could-make-pedophiles-a-protected-class/
-
You are trying to link WMDs and bearable arms, that is intellectually dishonest.
-
Are they available? Let's be realistic. BTW a 40 Oz gun is way to heavy to carry, so I don't think a 100 lb weapon is going to take over the market place. Most countries don't have nukes, and I doubt they would be affordable.
-
Is a nuke a bearable weapon?
-
The coury is supposed to apply the constitution as written and intended. The intent is clear, anything else is judicial activism.
-
Not even debatable what they intended
-
“To disarm the people…[i]s the most effectual way to enslave them.” – George Mason, referencing advice given to the British Parliament by Pennsylvania governor Sir William Keith, The Debates in the Several State Conventions on the Adooption of the Federal Constitution, June 14, 1788
-
“The laws that forbid the carrying of arms are laws of such a nature. They disarm only those who are neither inclined nor determined to commit crimes…. Such laws make things worse for the assaulted and better for the assailants; they serve rather to encourage than to prevent homicides, for an unarmed man may be attacked with greater confidence than an armed man.” – Thomas Jefferson, Commonplace Book (quoting 18th century criminologist Cesare Beccaria), 1774-1776
