Should the Second Amendment apply to Biden voters? Should gun businesses refuse to serve people who voted Biden

[Kutnupe14]

And it's a lot harder to pick stuff up.

Hell, you can’t even write the stuff down.

 

[actaeon277]

Interview

 

[AIRDOO]

Been talked about recently here in another thread.

I support a business owner's right to operate their business however they see fit within the law.

If I owned a firearms retail business I would be tempted to only sell AR15's to liberals.

No ammo though...

 

[Jeepster48439]

The current ammo thing has gotten me doing that to myself
"Hmmmmm should I buy a 9mm handgun like a sane person, or should I buy a .30 mauser handgun?"

I think you have it backwards... Buy whatever ammo you see available and then go buy a gun to shoot it.

 

[DadSmith]

Should constitutional rights apply to people who do not want them?

 

[Kutnupe14]

Should constitutional rights apply to people who do not want them?

The answer is that is complicated. But generally yes, but obviously you can give up rights willingly for legal expedience.

 

[Jaybird1980]

Should constitutional rights apply to people who do not want them?

Yes, plenty of people don't remain silent, doesn't mean they shouldn't be allowed to.

In fact I wish some would do it more often.

 

[Mark106]

I find a company's not selling ammo it doesn't have to be about the exact same level of importance as Congresswoman Boebert having guns in view during a tele-meeting: Of no importance whatsoever.
These people were seeking reactions, and those people getting their shorts knotted up in one direction or the other are providing 'em what they sought.
Hey, if it makes ya happy, knock yourself out.
As to a constitutional amendment applying to some groups of voters but not others, "That's not how it works; that's not how any of this works."

 

[jwamplerusa]

Should constitutional rights apply to people who do not want them?

Actually, that is very simple. If you are an American citizen you should hold to the values espoused in the Constitution in the United States of America. The values and the ideals documented in that constitution are why all Americans are expected to support. Just as our elected leaders must take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, all of it, not just the parts that are convenient.

If you do not desire these rights, or you do not support the Constitution in full, there is a simple solution go to state.gov download a form DS-4080 drive to the nearest United States embassy or consulate and renounce your citizenship. Problem solved.

 

[Kutnupe14]

Actually, that is very simple. If you are an American citizen you should hold to the values espoused in the Constitution in the United States of America. The values and the ideals documented in that constitution are why all Americans are expected to support. Just as our elected leaders must take an oath or affirmation to support the Constitution, all of it, not just the parts that are convenient.

If you do not desire these rights, or you do not support the Constitution in full, there is a simple solution go to state.gov download a form DS-4080 drive to the nearest United States embassy or consulate and renounce your citizenship. Problem solved.

Let’s lock down your argument.
Your argument, seems to be that if you are an American citizen, and don’t agree with something in the Constitution, you should renounce your citizenship? Is that what you’re saying, or would you like to amend what it seems like you meant?

 

[jwamplerusa]

Let’s lock down your argument.
Your argument, seems to be that if you are an American citizen, and don’t agree with something in the Constitution, you should renounce your citizenship? Is that what you’re saying, or would you like to amend what it seems like you meant?

No, you understood. There are things I don't care for, like the first sentence of the 14 th amendment, but I still support it.

Might want to ponder on that for awhile... Especially if you understand where the 14th Amendment came from and why.

It really shouldn't be that hard to figure out. If you want to change the constitution there's a process it is called the amendment process and it's intentionally difficult. What the communist who have currently gained control of our government don't seem to understand is they are subversives. Subverting our government through acts and laws which are contrary to the Constitution.

if you want to change the constitution leave government, because you took an oath to support the Constitution, and then make an effort to amend the Constitution. if you can get the appropriate number of states to agree with your position you can turn it into the communist s*** hole of your choice. Otherwise leave the country and go find the communist s*** hole of your choice. I would suggest China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, or Vietnam. You should find them all quite pleasant.

 

[JettaKnight]

.

 

[Bennettjh]

Should constitutional rights apply to people who do not want them?

Yes I think so. When people vote to infringe on others constitutional rights that truly want them and support them, that's a problem.

 

[Kutnupe14]

No, you understood. There are things I don't care for, like the first sentence of the 14 th amendment, but I still support it.

Might want to ponder on that for awhile... Especially if you understand where the 14th Amendment came from and why.

It really shouldn't be that hard to figure out. If you want to change the constitution there's a process it is called the amendment process and it's intentionally difficult. What the communist who have currently gained control of our government don't seem to understand is they are subversives. Subverting our government through acts and laws which are contrary to the Constitution.

if you want to change the constitution leave government, because you took an oath to support the Constitution, and then make an effort to amend the Constitution. if you can get the appropriate number of states to agree with your position you can turn it into the communist s*** hole of your choice. Otherwise leave the country and go find the communist s*** hole of your choice. I would suggest China, Cuba, North Korea, Venezuela, or Vietnam. You should find them all quite pleasant.

So abolitionists, should’ve simply left the nation, because they didn’t agree with part of the Constitution that enshrined slavery, rather than actively work against it? I think it’s fair to say that no man is bound to abide unjust laws, even if they are found in the Constitution... and let’s not quibble the original Constitution was not a document for all.

 

[Ark]

Lefties sure seem to be fans of the "private businesses can do what they want" line this past year.

Screw 'em. Vote to put people out of business, don't be surprised when they exercise the very right to free association that you so vigorously defend when it's your own tech companies silencing people you don't like.

What's that they're always saying? "If you don't like it, go build your own"? Well, there ya go, if you don't like it, open a new gun store yourself to service yourself and your other soon-to-be-former gun owners.

That said, it's bad business, and I consider myself an equal opportunity merchant of death.

 

[Tombs]

Should constitutional rights apply to people who do not want them?

The only rights you have are the ones you're willing to defend with violence.

Those people don't have any rights at all.

 

[DadSmith]

So abolitionists, should’ve simply left the nation, because they didn’t agree with part of the Constitution that enshrined slavery, rather than actively work against it? I think it’s fair to say that no man is bound to abide unjust laws, even if they are found in the Constitution... and let’s not quibble the original Constitution was not a document for all.

I don't believe the constitution enshrined slavery. When it said all men are created equal that put the abolitionist in motion. The original Civil War started about states rights then making slavery illegal came after the war was on. In fact the war did not do away with slavery because some neutral, and other northern states still had slaves. So they added an amendment to fix the issue. In a way it should never have been added if they would have just followed the founders written words all men created equal. I believe that should have set them free at that point. The founders were admitting it was wrong when they wrote it. Homosexuality is no longer prosecuted like it use to be. It is sin and God will judge it. They did win freedom to live that lifestyle it took longer than slavery to solve but America did it. I don't believe they should get marriage license because it is a religious affair. Or anyone who isn't religious should not be married just live together. Government should not be involved in peoples bedrooms nor in a religious act of marriage.

 

[Route 45]

The original Civil War started about states rights then making slavery illegal came after the war was on. In fact the war did not do away with slavery because some neutral, and other northern states still had slaves.

False.

Before There Were “Red” and “Blue” States, There Were “Free” States and “Slave” States – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

law.marquette.edu

Between 1840 and 1850, the last slaves in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island either died or were emancipated, and, as a result, the only northern state where slavery continued to exist after 1850 was New Jersey, where it was limited to slaves born before 1805.

I don't believe they should get marriage license because it is a religious affair. Or anyone who isn't religious should not be married just live together. Government should not be involved in peoples bedrooms nor in a religious act of marriage.

 

[DadSmith]

False.

Before There Were “Red” and “Blue” States, There Were “Free” States and “Slave” States – Marquette University Law School Faculty Blog

law.marquette.edu

Between 1840 and 1850, the last slaves in Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island either died or were emancipated, and, as a result, the only northern state where slavery continued to exist after 1850 was New Jersey, where it was limited to slaves born before 1805.

Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware still had slaves do you deny that? My statement stands as fact not false.

Marriage is a religious rite not an atheistic rite. Might want to look up the history of where Marriage came from.

 

[Route 45]

Kentucky, Maryland, Missouri, and Delaware still had slaves do you deny that? My statement stands as fact not false.

Your statement that the civil war was not about slavery is demonstrably false, much akin to a flat earth argument. The small number of remaining slaves in "neutral" states is irrelevant.

Marriage is a religious rite not an atheistic rite. Might want to look up the history of where Marriage came from.

Maybe YOU need to look it up.

The origins of marriage

The institution of marriage is now the subject of a bitter national debate. How did marriage begin and why?

theweek.com