Hunter Biden found GUILTY of all 3 Gun Charges
(www.thegatewaypundit.com)
🤡 Awaiting Clown World Moves 🌎
You're viewing a single comment thread. View all comments, or full comment thread.
Comments (136)
sorted by:
Is it blatant?
If you're on crack you're a liability (his history is proof of this.) Gun shops don't want that liability on them. If I owned a gun shop I would want that question and I would want it enforced under perjury. I wouldn't want to sell to drug addicts.
The only thing that was blatant was his crack use. Don't smoke crack if you want to purchase a gun from an FFL.
People want Rights but the don't want the responsibilities that come with them.
Being a "liability" doesn't mean the government can take things away. The constitution is clear "shall not infringe". If someone commits a crime, then they can be punished, but you can't simply take away someone's rights because they might commit a crime, that's the exact thing we're fighting against. Smoking crack if fine as long as you do it responsibly.
You're right, if someone commits a crime then they can be punished.
Smoking crack and admitting to it in a book is an admission to a crime.
Perjury is also a crime.
"Smoking crack if fine as long as you do it responsibly."
Show me a "responsible" crack head! People do crack to escape responsibility!
You have a right to not incriminate yourself, by not answering.
You have a right to own a firearm, unless you are a committing a crime.
There is no rights violated because he made the choice to be a criminal drug addict over being a lawful and responsible gun owner.
A lot of people use crack responsibly, you just don't hear much about them because they go about their normal life. It may technically be a crime, but it is a bad law and should not be that way. This is all part of the failed war on drugs.
I know of and met many people that did crack. There is no responsible crack use and certainly no benefit, only harm.
As a Canadian, I don't understand why the first part of the 2nd amendment is, seemingly to me, so often ignored: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...." Regulated means that the people can set up and enforce rules. The infringement that seems to me to be forbidden is against the citizenry to be able to have armed militias, but there is an expectation that they would be regulated, and well regulated at that. I guess militias would have their own leaders who would be in charge of regulating them. If the militia leaders thought you were a drunken idiot, they would probably take away your musket or whatever and tell you to get it together. That's how I picture the 2A in the Founding Fathers' minds. But I'm just a Canadian so what do I know?
No. The context at the time to use "Well regulated" is in terms of maintenance and condition. Not regulated with "laws" and "instructions" or other red tape to restrict. Regulated as in properly managed, maintained, conditioned, fit, in-shape, trained... etc. They knowingly used open words because they understood technology would change. Bear "arms". Arms is a handgun, shot gun AR15, F15 or a god damned M1 Abrams if I want it. Not just a musket.
But, I mean, try buying an F15 or an M1A. You could go to Ukraine and get one. We've already paid for them 100 over with all those billions. Most of which is probably funding summer of love 2024 or Biden's re-election or some other psyop BS, or just laundered into someone's foundation.
Ive gone off the rails here on my comment, but I had a great history teacher that would remind us of the times, and how people spoke. How words were used. Yeah, he made us read the books, but he also gave us context. What a great 6th grade teach he was. I paid attention.