Trump Administration Files Brief Urging SCOTUS to Overturn NYC Gun Law

[Deanimator]

Yes.

I take it that you can actually read, perhaps with lips moving. But your comprehension skills are very weak. Tyr harder.

Well, support for slavery and support for racially invidious gun controls go together like Marxism and mass starvation, so...

 

[Deanimator]

Based on some of the comments and threads of late, me thinks there are more and more closet anti troll infecting THR.

The rotting corpse of AHSA keeps clawing its way out of the grave only to get back hoed into the ground again by supporters of the 2nd Amendment.

 

[Mullo98]

Trump is proving to be the most pro-2A president of the modern era.

I don’t want to get to political, but evidence suggests otherwise. I.E the bumpstock ban, “ take guns now, due process later “ and the fact he was ok with the AWB in his own book....so ya...

 

[Deanimator]

I don’t want to get to political, but evidence suggests otherwise. I.E the bumpstock ban, “ take guns now, due process later “ and the fact he was ok with the AWB in his own book....so ya...

Name a potential Democrat challenger who wouldn't be 1,000,000 times MORE dangerous to the 2nd Amendment (never mind the 1st, 4th, and 5th).

 

[Mullo98]

Name a potential Democrat challenger who wouldn't be 1,000,000 times MORE dangerous to the 2nd Amendment (never mind the 1st, 4th, and 5th).

swapping one danger for another won’t solve nothing. Why risk one anti-gunner for an someone will do the same? That’s all I got to say?

 

[Deanimator]

So, let's be clear. Because I understand the legal process and what an Amicus brief actually means and had the temerity to explain it, and because you don't happen to like the facts, you have now suggested that I am a racist/white supremacist and a Communist. Charming.

Really not compatible with my understanding of accepted Forum behavior. Perhaps the Mods will take this up with you.

History is not your friend.

I'm not suggesting, I'm STATING that you believe that states should be able to ignore the Bill of Rights. If they can ignore the 2nd Amendment (never mind Heller and McDonald), they can ignore the 13th and Brown vs. Board of Education.

 

[Deanimator]

swapping one danger for another won’t solve nothing. Why risk one anti-gunner for an someone will do the same? That’s all I got to say?

I'll take an infinitely LESSER danger in place of an infinitely GREATER one.

And I have to note you punted rather than answer the question.

 

[Deanimator]

So, you can't read. What you are stating is wrong. Writing it in caps doesn't make it less foolish.

That's not sarcasm. It's just evasion in the service of oppression.

 

[Mullo98]

I'll take an infinitely LESSER danger in place of an infinitely GREATER one.

And I have to note you punted rather than answer the question.

We shouldn’t take a risk for any, be a lesser one or not. A risk is a risk. Full stop.

 

[Deanimator]

We shouldn’t take a risk for any, be a lesser one or not. A risk is a risk. Full stop.

So, who running for President from EITHER party (or a third party for that matter), with literally ANY chance of winning, presents NO risk to the 2nd Amendment?

 

[GEM]

What a mess!
Closed!