Tulsi Gabbard Flips On "Common Sense" Gun Control Stance

[Daddyo]

Almost forgot, you can shoot dogs and goats and whatever with no repercussions. Someone has to do it

Democrats drown their unwanted dogs just ask Michael Vick.

Almost forgot…..to bad unborn human babies weren’t puppies…..maybe then you democrats would seek to save them rather that allow their slaughter. Sad that you actually show more feeling and concern for a dog than you do human babies.

 

[Hari Seldon]

Conservative women vote. Conservatives love everyone you just don’t get special rights because you are different. Conservative could care less if you choose not to carry or own a gun. Just leave us to choose for ourselves. Not all conservatives are religious. Those that are simply want the freedom to worship.

I mean if you want to go back in time to when democrats were lynching blacks and forming the KKK we can. I was listing recent history.

Worship in the middle of the field before a football game because God and Jesus love football. And if you pray hard enough he helps you win. Those lynching blacks are now part of the magidiots party. Southern strategy and history I see is not your thing. How about those fine nazis who marched in Charlottesville. Those are the descendants of the kkk types. But all liberals are ........ Spare us your bullshit.

 

[RF667799]

Democrats drown their unwanted dogs just ask Michael Vick.

Almost forgot…..to bad unborn human babies weren’t puppies…..maybe then you democrats would seek to save them rather that allow their slaughter. Sad that you actually show more feeling and concern for a dog than you do human babies.

There's a thread about killing dogs, and I believe nearly everyone participating had killed a dog or paid someone to kill a dog for them. Some admitted to multiple dog killings.

 

[Rich2018]

Tulsi Gabbard was a Reserve officer in the Army, which made her realize the importance of safety and being responsible with firearms. When Gabbard was in Congress, she initially supported "common sense" gun restrictions and regulations, however that stance has changed after considering the real motives behind the infringements.

“Once you start peeling back the surface, you understand that for a lot of folks who are using those words [gun control], they don't have good intentions at all,” said Tulsi. Thankfully, she has come to realize that the Founding Fathers wrote the Second Amendment to prevent the government from becoming too powerful and oppressive.

“Our founders intended the Second Amendment to be a check on the abuse of power by a tyrannical government, . . .”

Amendment II
"A well-regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
(I bolded the last 4 words - - they are VERY important)

It's good that Tulsi Gabbard finally understands the scope and purpose of the Second Amendment . . . i.e., to be a check on the abuse of power by a tyrannical government, and also that infringements OF ANY KIND are prohibited - - even "common sense" infringements.

"Common-Sense gun controls" = Half Measures.

 

[JMB1911A1]

"Common-Sense gun controls" = Half Measures.

"Common sense gun control" is rarely common sense. It just means infringing rights and usually has zero effect on criminals at all.

 

[Mungo Jerry]

"Common sense gun control" is rarely common sense. It just means infringing rights and usually has zero effect on criminals at all.

As intended

 

[JMB1911A1]

As intended

Glad to see that our resident anti-Constitution Brit has rejoined us. I think he posted on every thread on the first page of the sub-forum.

 

[Bum]

Glad to see that our resident anti-Constitution Brit has rejoined us. I think he posted on every thread on the first page of the sub-forum.

 

[Rich2018]

"Common sense gun control" is rarely common sense. It just means infringing rights and usually has zero effect on criminals at all.

Many laws infringe rights
Almost no law is for YOUR benefit, it is to benefit others/society.

 

[RF667799]

Many laws infringe rights
Almost no law is for YOUR benefit, it is to benefit others/society.

He's not a part of society?

Doesn't the law that allows some aliens to stay and work here, benefit you directly?

 

[SkyChief]

Many laws infringe rights

Very true. The thing is, only one Law explicitly (and literally) states that the Law shall not be infringed, and that Law is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Virtually every "common sense" gun control law or statute is an infringement - at least to some degree. Nearly every gun control law is in violation of Amendment II, and therefore unlawful.

Almost no law is for YOUR benefit, it is to benefit others/society.

This makes no sense.

 

[Rich2018]

Very true. The thing is, only one Law explicitly (and literally) states that the Law shall not be infringed, and that Law is the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Virtually every "common sense" gun control law or statute is an infringement - at least to some degree. Nearly every gun control law is in violation of Amendment II, and therefore unlawful.

This makes no sense.

I think that you'll find that a multitude of exceptions to police procedure violate constitutional law - particularly with relation to the war on drugs.

What restrictions on gun ownership/purchasing to approve of ?

 

[SkyChief]

I think that you'll find that a multitude of exceptions to police procedure violate constitutional law - particularly with relation to the war on drugs.

Probably so, but the Constitution doesn't prohibit infringements on drug purchase and usage. It does with arms (which includes firearms).

What restrictions on gun ownership/purchasing to approve of ?

Not sure what you're asking, but I can only think of one gun control restriction that does not infringe on anyone's right to keep and bear arms:

Bump Stock Ban. This is not an infringement, IMO. There may be others which are not infringements, but I can't think of any, atm.

 

[Rich2018]

Probably so, but the Constitution doesn't prohibit infringements on drug purchase and usage. It does with arms (which includes firearms).

So what ?
Are you saying that the problem is with the Constitution ?

Not sure what you're asking, but I can only think of one gun control restriction that does not infringe on anyone's right to keep and bear arms:

Bump Stock Ban. This is not an infringement, IMO. There may be others which are not infringements, but I can't think of any, atm.

Are you saying that you're not in favor of any restrictions on firearms ?

 

[SkyChief]

So what ?
Are you saying that the problem is with the Constitution ?

No. The Constitution is fine. The "problem" is ignorant lawmakers who ignore the Constitution.

Are you saying that you're not in favor of any restrictions on firearms ?

I do not favor any restrictions on firearms. If the Founding Fathers had wanted government to put restrictions on firearms, then they would not have told lawmakers that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Restrictions = infringements

 

[Rich2018]

No. The Constitution is fine. The "problem" is ignorant lawmakers who ignore the Constitution.

Or rather the Supreme Court does with its corrupt "interpretations" of the Constitution

But clearly, if the Constitution prevent the banning of guns, them it ***IS*** the problem.

I do not favor any restrictions on firearms. If the Founding Fathers had wanted government to put restrictions on firearms, then they would not have told lawmakers that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Restrictions = infringements

Why are restrictions on firearms a bad thing ?

 

[SkyChief]

. . . . Why are restrictions on firearms a bad thing ?

I have already answered this question:

Restrictions = infringements

Amendment II explicitly states that: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” They left no "wiggle room" for "common sense" infringements.

If you want to infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms, then you must first repeal Amendment II.

 

[Rich2018]

I have already answered this question:

Really, in what post/thread ?
Or can't you remember ?

Amendment II explicitly states that: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.” They left no "wiggle room" for "common sense" infringements.

And it does so in order to maintain a militia
Funny how gun lovers always miss that bit out.

If you want to infringe on the people's right to keep and bear arms, then you must first repeal Amendment II.

Not so much infringe as to completely remove. And yes it will.