Hashtag thisismylane Drs vs NRA warning graphical content

Because the actions committed were illegal.

To actually do such would require the united state supreme court to step up and undo the drastic expansion of the commerce clause illegally implemented by the Roosevelt administration. There is no legal basis for this expansion to stand, but no court has had the backbone to actually do what is needed. The united states government declared that it will not follow the law if it does not want to, and nothing can be done about it.

 

Come on. Use your words. I know you can.

The constitution contains no grant of legislative power that would allow congress to enact a law prohibiting the people of the several states from possessing firearms.

 

We're just going around in circles. We're at where we're at.

 

We're not going round in circles. I have told you that the constitution contains no language the would allow congress to enact a law forbidding the possession of firearms by the people of the several states and you have be unable to produce any such language from the document.

 

I never said there was.

 

So we agree that the constitution contains no language the would allow congress to enact a law forbidding the possession of firearms by the people of the several states.

 

This is very old news. Any internet search will show the claim is true.

https://www.npr.org/sections/health...ertificates-undercount-toll-of-medical-errors

https://catalyst.nejm.org/medical-errors-preventable-deaths/

https://www.hopkinsmedicine.org/new...rs_now_third_leading_cause_of_death_in_the_us

 

And we agree that if that's true it hasn't mattered. They've done it anyway.

 

Yes, we agree that the general government has acted in violation of the constitution.

 

Exaggeration.

Melinik is in San Francisco, California. A simple search gives all her info.

Antifa is the violent group, not the NRA.

 

According to you. Others might disagree.

 

Then they would need to produce the language in the constitution that would allow congress to enact a law forbidding the possession of firearms by the people of the several states. You have been unable to do so. Do you think others might be better able to?

 

I didn't try. They found a way to limit automatic weapons and there isn't dick sh*t you can do about it.

 

Yes, they did so in violation of the constitution. We've established that.

 

Others might disagree.

 

Sure. Other's might disagree. But of course they'd have no leg to stand on, since there is no language in the constitution that would allow congress to enact a law forbidding the possession of firearms by the people of the several states. They'd simply look ignorant and foolish.

 

Others might disagree.

 

But they would be unable to produce any language in the constitution that would allow congress to enact a law forbidding the possession of firearms by the people of the several states.

 

Then prove it.....in court. LOL

 

You are trying to convince the wrong people. You lost this battle over 80 years ago

 

Are you saying that there is a need for militia today?

 

Threats to members of congress officially sanctioned by the NRA? Surely you can't be serious.

That was congressman Ralph Norman who pulled out the gun. How is that the NRA? Was he even an NRA member?

 

Congress passed the Militia Act of 1903 that converted the Militia into the National Guard and granted the POTUS the power to call them up to defend the nation.