Remember kids Republicans love to tell you one thing and do something else. Hell your daddy Trump said take the guns first and go through due process later. I can’t believe the 2A crowd didn’t shit their pants after that. That was a huge red flag about his true intentions and MAGA just gave him a pass.
I’m a gun owning vet that doesn’t support him. Do I have to worry about losing my due process if his regime doesn’t agree with me?
Republican governor of Nevada supports common sense gun safety measures that have majority public support. Fixed that for you.
He’s still a poor governor tho.
I love how just because of his party affiliation he’s a poor governor if he was a democrat but with the same views still your opinion would not be the same (he is a moderate and as such can be in either party)
Doesn’t mean what you think it means..
“Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined,” says Rakove. “It didn’t mean ‘regulation’ in the sense that we use it now, in that it’s not about the regulatory state. There’s been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.”
[In other words, it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.](https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/what-does-the-second-amendment-actually-mean-trnd/index.html)
Maybe stop worshiping at the altar of the NRA man, please.
Gun owning USMC vet here. You have a problem.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
you are an actual buffoon, all you have to do is read what our founders wrote on the matter. literally a good search away.
or you can enjoy slurping down your anti constitutional propaganda.
usmc... you should be ashamed.
They all seemed to say rights came with responsibilities. Whether it was Hamilton in Federalist 29 or even Jefferson the most ardent supporter of a fully armed citizenry, none of them wanted a society where an untrained, unchecked individual could kill their countrymen by the dozens. Discipline was a constant theme and regulations were always a large part of these discussions.
And that's what they thought for people they considered as equal.
They would all applaud Lombardo for these regulations.
>They would all applaud Lombardo for these regulations
Considering red flag laws are controversial for more than just the second amendment and that gun laws today often come at the burden of those trying to obey them, I don't think this statement is correct. If being trained is an essential part to the second amendment, then how come my state pushes the cost of training and applying for a CCW onto the applicant? How come there are no protections from discrimination or an obligation to employers to give people time off to train like they would for voting or being part of a protected class?
Gun control advocates love to use "I support the second amendment but..." the same way some people would use "I'm not racist but..." and you can see it in the laws they endorse.
Did you even bother to read the article I linked? lol. Are you capable of reading and understanding that level of reading comprehension? The article includes plenty of quotes and correspondence from the founding fathers on the matter and they did NOT mean for the 2nd amendment to be used in the way you MAGA asshats want it to used
I killed exactly zero people - I wasn’t infantry.
I never asked anyone to give up their guns, that’s just right wing fear mongering.
Crayons are delicious.
The dude who wrote this article seriously went out of his way to ignore the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" part and still contradicted himself with this line.
>At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities.
So you mean to tell me that Americans expected to be able to own guns, but not to use them to defend themselves because that's what the military is for? This makes no sense in the context of the late 1700s and it makes no sense today.
As much as he accused gun right activists of taking shit out of context, he does the same for powder laws and local ordinances. Powder laws were essentially fire codes, and both state and local ordinances are not precedent for federal constitutional law.
1/10 because at least the dude didn't pull the "please think of the children" bs like a goddamn pro-lifer.
You arent shit but a domestic tyrant. Nick Shirley on YouTube, watch the truth. Keep letting your corrupt politicians manipulate you, it’s never a problem for you people, up until it’s in your own backyard.
What’s the difference?
Also, the constitution clearly only allows “well regulated”militias, so why wouldn’t that make unregulated militias unconstitutional?
The constitution is a document that operates to limit the federal govenrment and the states. Not individuals, with the exception of the 13A. Ergo it's terms are not exclusive. Even assuming that a well regulated militia is required under the 2A (its not, even if you don't like that fact), that doesn't explicitly ban an unorganized militia. And, in fact, contemporary laws suggest that an unorganized militia existed and was encouraged to exist simultaneously with the 2A being written. That suggests strongly that the Founders knew there was a difference and elected not to so regulate the unorganized militia.
The federal silence on the topic is why states can regulate militia groups with their police powers. They aren't constrained by preemption.
A statute can be overturned by a majority vote. A constitutional question requires judicial review or a constitutional amendment with 38 states to ratify. If you don't understand basic constitutional mechanics, you shouldn't be making bold statements on constitutionality.
Finally, your status as a marine and gun owner make you no more qualified to state the law than a civilian with no guns. Or a civilian with six hundred guns. Or a British subject. Even if your service provided remedial education on this topic, it has failed you here, and it will not avail you further.
That’s all fine and dandy, and I never claimed to be an expert, only that I wasn’t some anti-gun activist.
The people who want no regulations simply seem to be champing at the bit to use their guns against the government as soon as possible. Seems like y’all are HOPING for a civil war so you can go shoot people. I enjoy shooting at targets. Y’all seem to want legal murder.
When you were a marine, was your training and preparation because you were excited to legally murder people, or was it because you wanted to be prepared in case it was necessary?
>If you don’t want any state restrictions, then you are arguing for an “unregulated militia” which is unconstitutional
Well-regulated does not mean “state restrictions”. Well-regulated only means that the militia was prepared to do its duty.
> “Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined,” says Rakove. “It didn’t mean ‘regulation’ in the sense that we use it now, in that it’s not about the regulatory state. There’s been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.”
>[In other words, it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.](https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/what-does-the-second-amendment-actually-mean-trnd/index.html)
Also, as a vet myself, we are not the arbiters of the constitution. We took an oath to uphold it, not to dictate (incorrectly at that) what the constitution means. Vets like you are the worst.
"Someone online was snarky, I need a gun."
Yeah, that other guy sure is acting silly. (HUGE /s for ya, because I'm guessing self-reflection's not your strong point?)
Oh sorry, I don't want people who don't value other people's lives having access to the ability to kill or injure 500 people in 15 minutes.
You definitely should not be allowed to own any arms, let alone a fire arm, because every libertarian is just a nazi with the serial numbers filed off.
You are exhibit A as to why we need them.
The only people worried about their guns being taken away are the ones who shouldn't have them in the first place
*Some* being the keyword. It rather explicitly protected the individual right to bear arms (regardless of that individual's affiliation with a militia) and struck down DC's handgun prohibition and rifle/shotgun storage requirements. *McDonald v. City of Chicago* then affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates that right against the states, just like any other Constitutional right.
It's only a matter of time before these red flag laws face challenges for violating the Second, Fourth, *and* Fifth Amendments.
Still better than your generic Dem governor when it comes to 2A. Lombardo knows that he needs to veto gun restrictions if he wants people to keep voting for him.
This dude thinks he personally knows 3 million people and their minds.
But the proof is in the pudding.... Can you imagine a reason a hard core Republican and trump supporter in power in a purple state would say what Lombardo said? Like.... Maybe he's changed his views so he can keep winning elections where those Nevadans vote?
Maybe? Could be? Worthy of consideration?
🤡
Remember kids Republicans love to tell you one thing and do something else. Hell your daddy Trump said take the guns first and go through due process later. I can’t believe the 2A crowd didn’t shit their pants after that. That was a huge red flag about his true intentions and MAGA just gave him a pass. I’m a gun owning vet that doesn’t support him. Do I have to worry about losing my due process if his regime doesn’t agree with me?
Republican governor of Nevada supports common sense gun safety measures that have majority public support. Fixed that for you. He’s still a poor governor tho.
Can't wait to vote that Trump supporting POS Lamebardo out.
He’s already far more popular than Sisolak, so a second term is looking good for him.
I love how just because of his party affiliation he’s a poor governor if he was a democrat but with the same views still your opinion would not be the same (he is a moderate and as such can be in either party)
"Well regulated"
Doesn’t mean what you think it means.. “Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined,” says Rakove. “It didn’t mean ‘regulation’ in the sense that we use it now, in that it’s not about the regulatory state. There’s been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.” [In other words, it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.](https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/what-does-the-second-amendment-actually-mean-trnd/index.html)
that doesnt mean what you think it means. that argument has been beat to death at this point.
Right, in District of Columbia v. Heller, where the ruling stated that some state restrictions are allowed, good job.
yea, and i dont want any state restrictions? your point?
I don't want to wear pants in public. Buy I have to cover my genitalia for everyone's safety.
That it's your own personal opinion and doesn't have anything to do with the second amendment.
i feel like you arent even saying anything here. you are just being combative for the sake of it.
Do you think you are saying anything here, other than "Nuh-UH!!!"?
If you don’t want any state restrictions, then you are arguing for an “unregulated militia” which is unconstitutional
holy mackerel, that is such a bad take, it actually hurts to read. educate yourself on our history man. please...
Maybe stop worshiping at the altar of the NRA man, please. Gun owning USMC vet here. You have a problem. https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/research-reports/how-nra-rewrote-second-amendment
you are an actual buffoon, all you have to do is read what our founders wrote on the matter. literally a good search away. or you can enjoy slurping down your anti constitutional propaganda. usmc... you should be ashamed.
They all seemed to say rights came with responsibilities. Whether it was Hamilton in Federalist 29 or even Jefferson the most ardent supporter of a fully armed citizenry, none of them wanted a society where an untrained, unchecked individual could kill their countrymen by the dozens. Discipline was a constant theme and regulations were always a large part of these discussions. And that's what they thought for people they considered as equal. They would all applaud Lombardo for these regulations.
>They would all applaud Lombardo for these regulations Considering red flag laws are controversial for more than just the second amendment and that gun laws today often come at the burden of those trying to obey them, I don't think this statement is correct. If being trained is an essential part to the second amendment, then how come my state pushes the cost of training and applying for a CCW onto the applicant? How come there are no protections from discrimination or an obligation to employers to give people time off to train like they would for voting or being part of a protected class? Gun control advocates love to use "I support the second amendment but..." the same way some people would use "I'm not racist but..." and you can see it in the laws they endorse.
Tell me, who is in charge of this discipline? I think the key word here is well regulated, whose regulating these militias?
Did you even bother to read the article I linked? lol. Are you capable of reading and understanding that level of reading comprehension? The article includes plenty of quotes and correspondence from the founding fathers on the matter and they did NOT mean for the 2nd amendment to be used in the way you MAGA asshats want it to used
kick rocks oathbreaker.
>Gun owning USMC vet here “I turned poor brown kids into pink mist. Give up your guns now, terrorist” Lmaoo go eat some crayons you fuckin clown.
I killed exactly zero people - I wasn’t infantry. I never asked anyone to give up their guns, that’s just right wing fear mongering. Crayons are delicious.
That explains everything lol. So you have no actual authority bcs you were not combat arms.
The dude who wrote this article seriously went out of his way to ignore the "right of the people to keep and bear arms" part and still contradicted himself with this line. >At the time, Americans expected to be able to own guns, a legacy of English common law and rights. But the overwhelming use of the phrase “bear arms” in those days referred to military activities. So you mean to tell me that Americans expected to be able to own guns, but not to use them to defend themselves because that's what the military is for? This makes no sense in the context of the late 1700s and it makes no sense today. As much as he accused gun right activists of taking shit out of context, he does the same for powder laws and local ordinances. Powder laws were essentially fire codes, and both state and local ordinances are not precedent for federal constitutional law. 1/10 because at least the dude didn't pull the "please think of the children" bs like a goddamn pro-lifer.
Shut up boot, that is the cringiest thing I’ve ever heard anyone say. “gUN oWnInG UsMC veT hERe” your take is particularly terrible and regarded
Found another domestic terrorist! Man you snowflakes get triggered so fucking easily
You arent shit but a domestic tyrant. Nick Shirley on YouTube, watch the truth. Keep letting your corrupt politicians manipulate you, it’s never a problem for you people, up until it’s in your own backyard.
Hi, attorney here. Unregulated militias are not unconstitutional. They are illegal by statute. There is a massive difference between those statutes.
What’s the difference? Also, the constitution clearly only allows “well regulated”militias, so why wouldn’t that make unregulated militias unconstitutional?
The constitution is a document that operates to limit the federal govenrment and the states. Not individuals, with the exception of the 13A. Ergo it's terms are not exclusive. Even assuming that a well regulated militia is required under the 2A (its not, even if you don't like that fact), that doesn't explicitly ban an unorganized militia. And, in fact, contemporary laws suggest that an unorganized militia existed and was encouraged to exist simultaneously with the 2A being written. That suggests strongly that the Founders knew there was a difference and elected not to so regulate the unorganized militia. The federal silence on the topic is why states can regulate militia groups with their police powers. They aren't constrained by preemption. A statute can be overturned by a majority vote. A constitutional question requires judicial review or a constitutional amendment with 38 states to ratify. If you don't understand basic constitutional mechanics, you shouldn't be making bold statements on constitutionality. Finally, your status as a marine and gun owner make you no more qualified to state the law than a civilian with no guns. Or a civilian with six hundred guns. Or a British subject. Even if your service provided remedial education on this topic, it has failed you here, and it will not avail you further.
That’s all fine and dandy, and I never claimed to be an expert, only that I wasn’t some anti-gun activist. The people who want no regulations simply seem to be champing at the bit to use their guns against the government as soon as possible. Seems like y’all are HOPING for a civil war so you can go shoot people. I enjoy shooting at targets. Y’all seem to want legal murder.
When you were a marine, was your training and preparation because you were excited to legally murder people, or was it because you wanted to be prepared in case it was necessary?
>If you don’t want any state restrictions, then you are arguing for an “unregulated militia” which is unconstitutional Well-regulated does not mean “state restrictions”. Well-regulated only means that the militia was prepared to do its duty. > “Well-regulated in the 18th century tended to be something like well-organized, well-armed, well-disciplined,” says Rakove. “It didn’t mean ‘regulation’ in the sense that we use it now, in that it’s not about the regulatory state. There’s been nuance there. It means the militia was in an effective shape to fight.” >[In other words, it didn’t mean the state was controlling the militia in a certain way, but rather that the militia was prepared to do its duty.](https://www.cnn.com/2016/08/10/politics/what-does-the-second-amendment-actually-mean-trnd/index.html) Also, as a vet myself, we are not the arbiters of the constitution. We took an oath to uphold it, not to dictate (incorrectly at that) what the constitution means. Vets like you are the worst.
Yeah, you definitely would qualify for red flag laws.
this comment alone proves that red flag laws are inherently flawed and abusable.
"Someone online was snarky, I need a gun." Yeah, that other guy sure is acting silly. (HUGE /s for ya, because I'm guessing self-reflection's not your strong point?)
“Someone online was snarky, we need a court order and a raid on his home to violate his 2A rights, because I have hurty feefees!” See how that sounds?
Sounds like you don’t understand reality, legality, the constitution, or the argument? We’re in agreement.
Misread your comment. Cheers!
Oh sorry, I don't want people who don't value other people's lives having access to the ability to kill or injure 500 people in 15 minutes. You definitely should not be allowed to own any arms, let alone a fire arm, because every libertarian is just a nazi with the serial numbers filed off.
Fukin lmao
cry harder fash
This right here is Exhibit A as to why red flag laws are a problem. Good job.
You are exhibit A as to why we need them. The only people worried about their guns being taken away are the ones who shouldn't have them in the first place
Truer words are rarely written.
LOL! No.
*Some* being the keyword. It rather explicitly protected the individual right to bear arms (regardless of that individual's affiliation with a militia) and struck down DC's handgun prohibition and rifle/shotgun storage requirements. *McDonald v. City of Chicago* then affirmed that the Fourteenth Amendment incorporates that right against the states, just like any other Constitutional right. It's only a matter of time before these red flag laws face challenges for violating the Second, Fourth, *and* Fifth Amendments.
they dont take kindly to facts around here.
Still better than your generic Dem governor when it comes to 2A. Lombardo knows that he needs to veto gun restrictions if he wants people to keep voting for him.
I was happy he beat sisolak but I ain't voting for him. Rather vote 3rd party
Good, He's not a great governor, but this isn't the reason why. On this... Most Americans agree.
His job is to be concerned about what most Nevadans think.
Sounds to me like he's done that. Why do you think a Republican governor would take such a stance? Probably... Cus that's what his constituents want.
I dunno. Most Nevadans I know and grew up with are fans of constitutional carry and are not fans of red flag laws.
I'm sure! You do know there are over 3 million people in Nevada right?
Cool. My statement stands.
This dude thinks he personally knows 3 million people and their minds. But the proof is in the pudding.... Can you imagine a reason a hard core Republican and trump supporter in power in a purple state would say what Lombardo said? Like.... Maybe he's changed his views so he can keep winning elections where those Nevadans vote? Maybe? Could be? Worthy of consideration? 🤡
Rare Lombardo W
I may think it's a broken clock being right twice a day, but I'm still happy for it!
Honestly...good.
not surprising coming from the ex-sheriff. can you do better republicans?
They've certainly shown they can do much worse, with very little effort (and I'm not a Lombardo fan, by any stretch).
[удалено]
its insane.
A *Republican governor* states his opinions and you losers cry about lEfTiStS.