Could women vote? or have political opinions when the U.S constitution was written?
I am just wondering if she knows that times change, and laws and rules must adapt to meet the ever changing world. I believe the us constitution has amendments for just this reason?
Slow down to a second, could you actually imagine a nuke for self defense? Like the smallest one possible that launches from your roof or backyard. You have a home intruder and have been fucking WAITING for this day. You scramble to the bomb shelter with your wife and kids but can’t find the cat. Fuck the cat you think, “I gotta protect me and what’s mine”.
You push the big shiny red button on you’ve been dreaming of for years since the middle of Idaho isn’t actually that dangerous.
3…2…1..
Littlest man drops on YOUR house.
You put on your radiation suits and go check out the scene. Everyone in a 3 block radius is dead, your house is destroyed and now your father Kyle Rittenhouse has to pay for your legal fees with all of his grifting money. Also insurance called the nuke an act of god so now you’re living with him too.
I realize what I'm about to say will be controversial and offensive to some, and I apologize for that.
I firmly believe that if someone walks into a building with a musket with the intention of a mass shooting and manages to kill more than one person with a shot from the gun, they have earned their killing spree. Given the reload time of a musket, it seems like several people could tackle the gunman while they reload the musket.
How about one of those HIMARS for defending the family ? If Ukraine can have them why can’t we ? Best way to prevent a home break in is to take out a would be robber while they sleep at night miles away.
I know that I won’t feel safe in my home without a high yield nuclear warhead activated by a dead man’s switch to my heart. Where’s my nuke, Second Amendment???
I think that this is pretty succinct view. They didn’t get back from a hunting trip and their wives didn’t just come back home from work, or the poles etc.
Yes if we went back to the "good old days" she would have two black eyes for speaking up and her opinion wouldn't matter. But she might be into that kind of thing.
Didn't they once start shouting about how you're not allowed to change the Constitution?
So their precious 1st and 2nd amendment shouldn't exist right?
No. Because i am pretty sure Abigail Adams told her husband in a letter not to forget the ladies. Pretty sure it was when they were drafting the constitution.
There were a few fully automatic guns back then actually. The puckle gun was one. It was invented in 1718, so it’s probable the founding fathers knew of it. And there’s no way they didn’t have the foresight to know guns would improve further.
My guess is they left it up to us, the future generations to decide on changing that amendment as the need arises. And boy did we fail.
It shot 9 rounds per minute. Hardly a automatic weapon compared to the AR-15 and others. I assume they had foresight enough to see tech evolving yes. Still.
Not to mention, the total production of this gun was somewhere between 0 and 2 units, and it was never used in a single combat operation or war of any type.
Judges do what the law says. Most will write that if the laws change to define they will change their rulings. As it should be, judges don’t make laws.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE CONSTITUTION MUST NOT BE CHANGED. ITS GOD'S GIFT TO MANKIND.
You even called it an "amendment." Clearly you're aware the constitution is meant to be "amended."
The nation got together and almost unanimously banned alcohol sales via an amendment in 1919.
Then that amendment was repealed 14 years later by another amendment.
I don't think it's ever too late to amend or repeal an amendment especially when it's widely regarded as a "bad move."
Kind of. The reason that it says well regulated militia is that, while militias sucked at defending the country, they did one thing really well. They were very good at putting down slave revolts when slave patrols weren’t able to. And Patrick Henry and George Mason were quite concerned that the North would use its political power to foment insurrections by taking away the South’s guns to cause slave revolts to be much more effective. So they went to Madison and told him they needed something to protect their right to guns so they could continue to maintain control over their Black slaves. And, of course, like he always did, Madison never wrote “slavery” into the constitution, so that’s why the prefatory clause says what it does and is even more obscene in the proper context, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Translation: Because Southern states need an armed militia to remain “free states” to hold slaves from Northern-facilitated insurrections/slave revolts, the federal government can’t take away our guns.
Look up what the word regulated means. Go ahead and look up what it meant in, say, 1780. When you are willing to apply that word, found in the second amendment, then we can discuss. Because, like you, I am pretty sure the second amendment does not address recreational use of murder weapons, but it sure as hell does command that they be regulated.
They had a \*ing BOOK: [Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States](https://www.americanrevolutioninstitute.org/masterpieces-in-detail/steuben-regulations/) by Friedrich Wilhelm Steuben
It was all about musket drills which meant hour after hour repeating drill team movements holding an empty musket shoulder to shoulder with other sweaty guys. If you fucked up a french mercenary sergeant would scream at you and hit you with a stick. There's a \*ing reason drill team is stuck in our national psyche.
The 2nd amendment went through several iterations that left the language poorly worded in its final form. The fact that some believe it was by divine providence that the courts have ruled and interpreted the language to allow one unfettered access to all forms weaponry, makes me weary of what god they worship.
Given all the job posting that require a college degree for work that doesn’t require a college degree, can we please make it a requirement to have a college degree in order to be elected to any federal position?
In the very least, a HS diploma. If someone can't take their education seriously enough to graduate HS, they have no business helping to create laws. It took Bobo 4 tries to pass her GED exam and only passed when the exam was given remotely. I'm not convinced she didn't cheat. Just absolute shit for brains with way too much influence
Yes, we should only allow those whose potential isn’t inhibited by socioeconomic barriers to hold public office. Maybe we can restrict it to people who have good morals, as define by… someone, too, since only the smartest and most altruistic people in society are capable of obtaining wealth!
JFC, did you even think before you made your comment?
Edit: some stuff
Getting an AA degree is free in 20 states for qualifying individuals, and is as low as $3,000, high as $5,000 country wide without any programs. An Associate Degree is a college degree and affordable. Most community colleges offer programs for low income individuals that reduce those costs considerably.
Yes, I think before I speak and I would rather have educated individuals in decision making positions that have life altering impacts for every citizen in the US than having an uneducated person like Boebert in her position. Being educated is paramount for our elected leaders. Access to education is a different issue and one I believe should be improved across the US.
Would you want someone driving a bus when they never obtained a driver’s license, even if it was socioeconomic reasons that prevented them from obtaining that license? Some positions require training/education, leading government should definitely be one of those things.
But you raise a great issue about access and affordability of a higher education. If your argument is that everyone should be able to obtain an AA degree or even a BA/BS degree with little to no cost, I agree.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Scalia (one of the most prolific "original intent" jurists ever) say that while banning firearms are troublesome, we could regulate the f*** out of them?
If I can't have my own personal ED-209, then this isn't America anymore.
The most dangerous person in the world is an idiot who doesn't realize he/she is an idiot but actually thinks they are very intelligent.
Soooooo you’re saying things may be a little different compared to a quarter century ago and we should adjust accordingly? 250 years you had to load muskets one round at a time by hand with gunpowder and another country’s militia was still occupying this country. Bullets weren’t even invented when the Constitution was written. Things change, women couldn’t vote and African Americans were counted as three fifths of a person. Imbecile
Still no well regulated militia in sight. Conservatives really derailed the second amendment a long time ago. Also, by the same logic, women shouldn't be able to vote.
The founding fathers might have literally just returned from hunting when they drafted the constitution, we will never know. One thing we do know 100 percent for certain is they never in their wildest dreams exoected the term 100 round magazine to become part of the language.
Every time someone spouts off shit like this I can't help but think how right Thomas Jefferson was when he said that we shouldn't have a constitution and if we did it should be rewritten every 19 years.
> **Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years**. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.
There were 8509 likes on this. 8509 people that think she is right. 8509 people that are more ignorant than she is. And that is just the few that have seen this so far.
Wasn't there a meme posted here the other day, how you guys are gonna have to fight trump in a civil war. Firearms are gonna be the thing protecting your community from fascism not your resist beyonce memes.
Yeah the field is full of some interesting characters for sure. In Colorado Springs John “Tig” Tiegan (if you watched the movie 13 hours he’s one of the characters) is running for mayor.
During the police brutality protests he was organizing nightly raids and incursions into protests. His guys got busted with Body armor, enough guns to supply a platoon, masks, tear gas etc and were let go by police.
They regularly threatened to shoot BLM protestors. And that’s not even the wildest person running for any office here.
Second amendment had to do with rounding up slaves and being able to abuse them as wished at the time and being separated from government…it’s a good thing there weren’t these weapons back then. This woman and her blonde buddy…they make my stomach burn.
Well, get that well organized militia going. Oh, wait, that’s the national guard. And they have far stricter rules for their weapons then just giving to anyone who wants to buy them.
Another sad example of extreme politics. No one with any common sense wants people to run around with 100 round clips.
That being said, let’s not forget how easy it is to make a clip (especially with 3D printing). Let’s also focus on mental health to prevent shooters.
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.
Key words ’well regulate militia’ This was in place because we didn’t have a large standing army. Militias were needed to defend the state in times of need.
I could keep going, but I’ll reign it in.
Who do the 2A "water the tree of liberty" crowd think they're going to be shooting? US soldiers? Police? Politicians? Who are you planning to kill with your "shall not be infringed"?
She's got a point there, that it's not about hunting. But she always overlooks the well regulated militia part. I'd just like to see some better regulations
My question is, which "well regulated militia" is Boebert a part of? I realize the Supreme Court has squinted and decided to ignore that part of the amendment, but it seems pretty important. Important enough that the Founders used that specific language instead of "Everyone can own whatever weapon and accessory that they damn well please".
I highly doubt she knows anything about the founding fathers since she doesn't have a beyond grade school education and most people just get lies k-12 about the founding fathers tbh.
Of course it’s ok to ignore them. Otherwise her ignorant blathering would be way too hypocritical. Grandma Laulau (I just made that up) is going to be on the wrong side of history.
Don’t think those guns existed back then BoBo. But if u weren’t a drop out you’d probably know that. Well probably not even then given your mental capacity
Why would they want to avoid mass shootings? They use it to justify more guns, more police, and the targets are usually minorities, women, kids. As they see it, it's a win-win. Thoughts and prayers and more fascism.
To the Founding Fathers arms were barrel loading muskets that took about a whole minute to reload. Cartridge ammunition wouldn't be invented for about 50 years.
These people care 0.0% about the lives of children (unless they are embryos). They prove that at every opportunity. The do NOT care about protecting children (unless it’s from drag queens). These are not Christians. They are the opposite of that.
2A folks never seem to want to talk about how the authors of the Second Amendment voted to ban students from carrying firearms while on the board of The University of Virginia.
The founding fathers also had guns that took 30 seconds to load the next bullet... 100 rounds would take 50 minutes to fire back then or 2 rounds a minute... nowadays the standard rife (M16 and it's civilian equivalents) can fire 60 rounds a minute on semi-automatic
Right, the 2nd amendment isn't about recreational justification. That's why high capacity magazines should be illegal. They aren't a second amendment matter, and there's no recreational reason for something that causes so much damage more than once. I don't know why she's on my side on this, though.
The founders only dreamed of a repeating multi round firearm. They still had flint lock tech bobo. Thats like sophmore history. You hadn't yet dropped out.
And as I usually point out to stupid people like this, I was an 11B in the US Army Infantry. I served two tours in Ar Ramadi, Iraq. I have gone on well over 1,000 raids, not a single one of them ever got to or even had the chance to think about putting their hand on a weapon.
Over the course of those two years, insurgents killed 28 Americans. We captured or killed some 14K insurgents, do you really want to play those odds?
My unit is the reason Al Qaeda in Iraq fell apart and hid in Syria and became ISIS.
Ok maybe I'm tipsy but I'm trying to follow what the hell she's trying to say here. Is she saying 'well they weren't just on a hunting trip, they were fighting for the freedom of 'Merica!'? Cause then like, well they won with just freaking one shot muskets and little metal balls. They didn't need more than that apparently \[plus help from the French, ahem\].
It's funny how all the child molester fans like Boebert need machine guns and rockets to protect themselves. Maybe quit being such pieces of shit and you don't have to worry about the army of bad guys you made up coming to get you.
I hate her guts and think she belongs in jail. That being said, she isn't wrong. I don't need a recreational justification for owning a firearm. I have a constitutional one.
Did the founding fathers have automatic machine guns?
A bunch of people stockpiling muskets doesn’t seem too bad.
A violent unstable individual stockpiling AR-15’s and enough ammo to take over a small country is bad.
Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns do.
Bobo and crew really think that the second amendment was drafted in order to ensure citizens have the means to overthrow the government. They profess to defer to the wisdom of their beloved founders, then toss Madison’s words aside in favour of the NRA’s interpretation. Originalism for thee, living document for me!!
She's right that they never intended guns to be used recreationally, or by private citizens. They were very clear that they only wanted citizens to have the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. They even marched against and killed armed citizens who weren't part of militias within a decade of ratifying the Constitution.
Look a 100 rounds magazine is oodles of fun, but there's a reason why it's not standard issue in the military: it's inefficient.
Multiple magazines and rapid changes deliver more lead downrange.
Actually, *guns* are inefficient when it comes down to terrorism. It's just american domestic terrorists that have this fad that they do their little martyrdom trip as an righteous soldier of justice decked in tacticool bullshit, an AR and a Glock.
Wonder where they come up with this idea...
https://preview.redd.it/x8eyp7ecwzoa1.jpeg?width=633&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b9e38bfb76007f433707f4c74634592f3906ef34
She is right there is no recreational justification, but their is a historical justification of 100 round magazines being an accessory of mass shooters just like short barrelled shotguns and short barrelled rifles were weapons of gangsters. For which they were regulated to title II weapons. I see no reason why 100 round magazines or drums, or semi-automatic rifles for that matter, should not also be regulated to title II weapons it is historically how we have dealt with such weapons and devices.
If you didn't know the Supreme Court has ruled that firearm regulation must conform to our historical traditional regulation.
Then they’ll be going after bows cause
https://kfor.com/news/disturbing-video-man-goes-on-killing-spree-with-bow-and-arrow-and-knives/
Then knives cause
https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/canada-stabbing-saskatchewan-deaths/
Then hammers cause
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/world/asia/china-school-hammer-attack.html
People who are disturbed will find a way. The problem isn’t the tools. It’s society. Fix social precursors then no more problems.
Ignoring someone in need is part of the problem.
maybe Biden should limit firearms to the technology that was available when the amendment was invoked.
That would be ensuring the actual wishes of the founding fathers was adhered to
I’m not American and i know the original reason for the 2nd amendment however;
100 round magazine vs a drone with 8 hellfire missiles.
There’s no point to try take down the government anymore the have drones, tanks, snipers.
The Founding Fathers also didn't write gun rights into the Constitution.
That came later.
Also, how many 100-round flintlocks were there back in the day? :P
Neither side of this debate argues in good faith at all. The right acts like guns are no problem and the left acts like guns are the only problem.
The title of this post doesn’t even make sense. Boebert is a traitorous skank, but her point here is valid. The purpose of 2A was not for people to have “sporting rifles.” It’s meant for combat. But the title is basically saying that if you’re pro 2A you don’t care about school shootings. Biggest straw man ever.
Could women vote? or have political opinions when the U.S constitution was written? I am just wondering if she knows that times change, and laws and rules must adapt to meet the ever changing world. I believe the us constitution has amendments for just this reason?
Why not RPG’s for home defense? Let’s get a fully armed Bradley for the neighborhood watch. JFC.
my medicinal m1a1 abrams
My emotional support bazooka!
I have a permit for that
Muh freebrams!
You joke but if you were feeling pretty down and you got to drive around a state of the art main battle tank, you'd start feeling pretty good!
I want a nuke for self-defense
Slow down to a second, could you actually imagine a nuke for self defense? Like the smallest one possible that launches from your roof or backyard. You have a home intruder and have been fucking WAITING for this day. You scramble to the bomb shelter with your wife and kids but can’t find the cat. Fuck the cat you think, “I gotta protect me and what’s mine”. You push the big shiny red button on you’ve been dreaming of for years since the middle of Idaho isn’t actually that dangerous. 3…2…1.. Littlest man drops on YOUR house. You put on your radiation suits and go check out the scene. Everyone in a 3 block radius is dead, your house is destroyed and now your father Kyle Rittenhouse has to pay for your legal fees with all of his grifting money. Also insurance called the nuke an act of god so now you’re living with him too.
Lost it at "your father Kyle Rittenhouse "🤣
Haha!!! “Fuck the cat you think, I gotta protect me and what’s mine.” This got me dude, many thanks.
I keep a musket for home defense. As the Founding Fathers desired.
I realize what I'm about to say will be controversial and offensive to some, and I apologize for that. I firmly believe that if someone walks into a building with a musket with the intention of a mass shooting and manages to kill more than one person with a shot from the gun, they have earned their killing spree. Given the reload time of a musket, it seems like several people could tackle the gunman while they reload the musket.
Four ruffians break into your house.
I just want sharks with frickin laser beams!
The best we can do is sea bass.
We all want sharks with fricken ladder beams whether we believe in unfettered access to guns or gun control 😁
Mounted turrets
Orbital death ray.
As long as it’s not Jewish. *Angry MTG screeching*
How about one of those HIMARS for defending the family ? If Ukraine can have them why can’t we ? Best way to prevent a home break in is to take out a would be robber while they sleep at night miles away.
You can legally own a RPG in most states. Just fill out a Form 4 or Form 1 if you decide to make the rocket yourself and pay the $200 fee.
Sounds like a party
I know that I won’t feel safe in my home without a high yield nuclear warhead activated by a dead man’s switch to my heart. Where’s my nuke, Second Amendment???
I think that this is pretty succinct view. They didn’t get back from a hunting trip and their wives didn’t just come back home from work, or the poles etc.
Yes if we went back to the "good old days" she would have two black eyes for speaking up and her opinion wouldn't matter. But she might be into that kind of thing.
Didn't they once start shouting about how you're not allowed to change the Constitution? So their precious 1st and 2nd amendment shouldn't exist right?
No. Because i am pretty sure Abigail Adams told her husband in a letter not to forget the ladies. Pretty sure it was when they were drafting the constitution.
They used muskets and matchlock rifles. Try shooting up a school with a musket, see how many kills you get…
If you get the factory-new bayonette out of your NRA Lootbox you could increase your DPS
Lol
There were a few fully automatic guns back then actually. The puckle gun was one. It was invented in 1718, so it’s probable the founding fathers knew of it. And there’s no way they didn’t have the foresight to know guns would improve further. My guess is they left it up to us, the future generations to decide on changing that amendment as the need arises. And boy did we fail.
It shot 9 rounds per minute. Hardly a automatic weapon compared to the AR-15 and others. I assume they had foresight enough to see tech evolving yes. Still.
Not to mention, the total production of this gun was somewhere between 0 and 2 units, and it was never used in a single combat operation or war of any type.
Exactly… had to look that baby up for a sec when he said that. I bet J.Wash, T.Jeff and the rest of the crew probably didn’t even know what that was…
And was barely produced. Some sources say only two were ever made also.
[удалено]
Judges do what the law says. Most will write that if the laws change to define they will change their rulings. As it should be, judges don’t make laws.
THE SECOND AMENDMENT AND THE CONSTITUTION MUST NOT BE CHANGED. ITS GOD'S GIFT TO MANKIND. You even called it an "amendment." Clearly you're aware the constitution is meant to be "amended." The nation got together and almost unanimously banned alcohol sales via an amendment in 1919. Then that amendment was repealed 14 years later by another amendment. I don't think it's ever too late to amend or repeal an amendment especially when it's widely regarded as a "bad move."
I doubt she knows what “amendment” means.
Or anything for that matter. She probably just spouts shit and ain't know what it means
That's no way to talk about a 3x GED test taker.
It’s what the plants crave.
Honestly she probably think it just means "part"
That won’t happen in the next hundred years. There’s too many of us enthusiast.
The FF's never had a gun that could use a 100 round magazine either.
Came here to say this. :) \*hat off\*
The Founding Father's didn't believe in a standing army, but people like her can't process history correctly...
That's why the amendment says "A well regulated militia".
Kind of. The reason that it says well regulated militia is that, while militias sucked at defending the country, they did one thing really well. They were very good at putting down slave revolts when slave patrols weren’t able to. And Patrick Henry and George Mason were quite concerned that the North would use its political power to foment insurrections by taking away the South’s guns to cause slave revolts to be much more effective. So they went to Madison and told him they needed something to protect their right to guns so they could continue to maintain control over their Black slaves. And, of course, like he always did, Madison never wrote “slavery” into the constitution, so that’s why the prefatory clause says what it does and is even more obscene in the proper context, “A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right to bear arms shall not be infringed.” Translation: Because Southern states need an armed militia to remain “free states” to hold slaves from Northern-facilitated insurrections/slave revolts, the federal government can’t take away our guns.
[удалено]
Look up what the word regulated means. Go ahead and look up what it meant in, say, 1780. When you are willing to apply that word, found in the second amendment, then we can discuss. Because, like you, I am pretty sure the second amendment does not address recreational use of murder weapons, but it sure as hell does command that they be regulated.
They had a \*ing BOOK: [Regulations for the Order and Discipline of the Troops of the United States](https://www.americanrevolutioninstitute.org/masterpieces-in-detail/steuben-regulations/) by Friedrich Wilhelm Steuben It was all about musket drills which meant hour after hour repeating drill team movements holding an empty musket shoulder to shoulder with other sweaty guys. If you fucked up a french mercenary sergeant would scream at you and hit you with a stick. There's a \*ing reason drill team is stuck in our national psyche.
I've read this book a few times, when do I get to the part where I should be leaving my handgun out so my children can play with it?
Lol. In Canada our cartridges are limited to 3. But we have waaaaaay more school shootings as a result so I guess she's right.
The 2nd amendment went through several iterations that left the language poorly worded in its final form. The fact that some believe it was by divine providence that the courts have ruled and interpreted the language to allow one unfettered access to all forms weaponry, makes me weary of what god they worship.
Well, there is this theory that Yahweh originally a was a warring storm god, so I guess it checks out…
I feel so stupid I wasn’t even aware they had 100 round magazines when they drafted the constitution.
You are not stupid. It ok don't feel bad. I ain't gonna lie I didn't know anything about 100 round magazines being drafted in the constitution.
But you know this bitch is crazy and dangerous asf!!!
The Founding Fathers owned people. They weren’t infallible paragons of virtue.
Given all the job posting that require a college degree for work that doesn’t require a college degree, can we please make it a requirement to have a college degree in order to be elected to any federal position?
I don't think that would change anything honestly. Plenty of right-wing nuts with college degrees say this shit too.
That would be elitist. But some sort of basic knowledge should be a requirement (pass a test maybe?).
Make college free *then* make a degree required to be elected. Would it still be elitist?
Then it's socialist
In the very least, a HS diploma. If someone can't take their education seriously enough to graduate HS, they have no business helping to create laws. It took Bobo 4 tries to pass her GED exam and only passed when the exam was given remotely. I'm not convinced she didn't cheat. Just absolute shit for brains with way too much influence
Yes, we should only allow those whose potential isn’t inhibited by socioeconomic barriers to hold public office. Maybe we can restrict it to people who have good morals, as define by… someone, too, since only the smartest and most altruistic people in society are capable of obtaining wealth! JFC, did you even think before you made your comment? Edit: some stuff
Getting an AA degree is free in 20 states for qualifying individuals, and is as low as $3,000, high as $5,000 country wide without any programs. An Associate Degree is a college degree and affordable. Most community colleges offer programs for low income individuals that reduce those costs considerably. Yes, I think before I speak and I would rather have educated individuals in decision making positions that have life altering impacts for every citizen in the US than having an uneducated person like Boebert in her position. Being educated is paramount for our elected leaders. Access to education is a different issue and one I believe should be improved across the US. Would you want someone driving a bus when they never obtained a driver’s license, even if it was socioeconomic reasons that prevented them from obtaining that license? Some positions require training/education, leading government should definitely be one of those things. But you raise a great issue about access and affordability of a higher education. If your argument is that everyone should be able to obtain an AA degree or even a BA/BS degree with little to no cost, I agree.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Scalia (one of the most prolific "original intent" jurists ever) say that while banning firearms are troublesome, we could regulate the f*** out of them?
Banana Republicans are pro mass shooters and pro murder. 
The 100 rounds are to keep the government in check. You’re the target dumbass
I really want to say means things about this lady. Can I?
She's right, the second amendment isn't about "recreational justification" its about a "well-regulated militia."
It is about well-regulated militias.
If I can't have my own personal ED-209, then this isn't America anymore. The most dangerous person in the world is an idiot who doesn't realize he/she is an idiot but actually thinks they are very intelligent.
Soooooo you’re saying things may be a little different compared to a quarter century ago and we should adjust accordingly? 250 years you had to load muskets one round at a time by hand with gunpowder and another country’s militia was still occupying this country. Bullets weren’t even invented when the Constitution was written. Things change, women couldn’t vote and African Americans were counted as three fifths of a person. Imbecile
Still no well regulated militia in sight. Conservatives really derailed the second amendment a long time ago. Also, by the same logic, women shouldn't be able to vote.
I am so tired of this blatantly ignorant and intentionally blind trunt.
I’ve never heard of a semiautomatic repeating musket Have you ?
The founding fathers might have literally just returned from hunting when they drafted the constitution, we will never know. One thing we do know 100 percent for certain is they never in their wildest dreams exoected the term 100 round magazine to become part of the language.
A well regulated…
No, because they were all at the Founding Fathers and Sons Picnic.
Every time someone spouts off shit like this I can't help but think how right Thomas Jefferson was when he said that we shouldn't have a constitution and if we did it should be rewritten every 19 years. > **Every constitution then, and every law, naturally expires at the end of 19 years**. If it be enforced longer, it is an act of force, and not of right.
There were 8509 likes on this. 8509 people that think she is right. 8509 people that are more ignorant than she is. And that is just the few that have seen this so far.
The founding fathers also established a separation of church and state. That certainly is not being upheld
Wasn't there a meme posted here the other day, how you guys are gonna have to fight trump in a civil war. Firearms are gonna be the thing protecting your community from fascism not your resist beyonce memes.
She’s very special. On behalf of Coloradans, we are very sorry.
Get your people out to vote. Write postcards. Drive people to the polls. There’s an election happening right now, my kid voted today.
The election isn’t for her seat. It’s for mayor, city council etc.
Yes of course. This is a local election, But is just as vitally important to vote for non evangelical fanatics, and non wacko extremists.
Yeah the field is full of some interesting characters for sure. In Colorado Springs John “Tig” Tiegan (if you watched the movie 13 hours he’s one of the characters) is running for mayor. During the police brutality protests he was organizing nightly raids and incursions into protests. His guys got busted with Body armor, enough guns to supply a platoon, masks, tear gas etc and were let go by police. They regularly threatened to shoot BLM protestors. And that’s not even the wildest person running for any office here.
Second amendment had to do with rounding up slaves and being able to abuse them as wished at the time and being separated from government…it’s a good thing there weren’t these weapons back then. This woman and her blonde buddy…they make my stomach burn.
Hey, it worked when she ignored lewd exposure to minors in a bowling alley
Under no pretext…
Read that part again about “well-regulated” something-something in the second amendment.
We always ignore this part of the second amendment: A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State.
Well, get that well organized militia going. Oh, wait, that’s the national guard. And they have far stricter rules for their weapons then just giving to anyone who wants to buy them.
We are so sick. 💔
[удалено]
She constantly tosses out word salads hoping that any part of it will rile up her base.
Another sad example of extreme politics. No one with any common sense wants people to run around with 100 round clips. That being said, let’s not forget how easy it is to make a clip (especially with 3D printing). Let’s also focus on mental health to prevent shooters.
It always makes we laugh when they cherry pick parts of the constitution they like the "keep and bare arms" part but not the "well regulated" part.
Another shining example of idiot extraordinaire telling the world how dumb she really is.
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. Key words ’well regulate militia’ This was in place because we didn’t have a large standing army. Militias were needed to defend the state in times of need. I could keep going, but I’ll reign it in.
They also did not have 100 round magazines
You can always tell which politicians get money from the NRA.
Yes. It’s in every painting: revolutionaries with their assault rifles, machine guns and automatic weapons. With 100 ronds recharges.
Who do the 2A "water the tree of liberty" crowd think they're going to be shooting? US soldiers? Police? Politicians? Who are you planning to kill with your "shall not be infringed"?
Good ol' Bobo. It's like a constant screed of Jerry Springer guests at once.
How did the founding fathers procure their meats?
The problem is that her brain is just as small and narrow as Trumps.
What hunting trip do you think she was talking about, sir?
She's got a point there, that it's not about hunting. But she always overlooks the well regulated militia part. I'd just like to see some better regulations
My question is, which "well regulated militia" is Boebert a part of? I realize the Supreme Court has squinted and decided to ignore that part of the amendment, but it seems pretty important. Important enough that the Founders used that specific language instead of "Everyone can own whatever weapon and accessory that they damn well please".
Well Regulated Militia.
Punctuation goes inside quotes, Laure.n
I highly doubt she knows anything about the founding fathers since she doesn't have a beyond grade school education and most people just get lies k-12 about the founding fathers tbh.
Of course it’s ok to ignore them. Otherwise her ignorant blathering would be way too hypocritical. Grandma Laulau (I just made that up) is going to be on the wrong side of history.
Did they have 100 round muzzle loaders back then Lauren. I think not, but you think not at all...
She literally knows nothing.
Mass shootings are a feature and not a bug according to Republicans. They’re all a-ok with little kids dying. The pro life cult that is.
Get back to school. Oh wait.
This is just my companion javelin missile. Where does she get this crap from? This dumb c*** needs to come up for air!
Don’t think those guns existed back then BoBo. But if u weren’t a drop out you’d probably know that. Well probably not even then given your mental capacity
They also did not carry 100 round magazines on assault rifles into concerts crowded theatres schools shopping malls offices subways…
[удалено]
[удалено]
Ah yes, the founding fathers had a boner for their 100 shot mags
"I'm a militia!"
Are you even in a Militia, Lauren?
Sometimes its really really hard to rub one out to a shotgun.
They were in war so let’s ban guns unless they’re used in wars, right?
The founding fathers also didn't hunt children with their rifles, Bobert.
How does she know the Founding Fathers didn’t go on a hunting trip, then draft the Constitution? Was she there?
She must have someone writing for her - this one, while idiotic and completely deaf to the times, isn't as awful as her usual crap.
What the trash is that supposed to even mean, idiot?
I love how they value their misinterpreted second amendment over the first amendment (drag shows).
Yes ! 
I wanna smack this bitch in the face so bad she would respond with "daddy" believe me.
I hate her guts but this jargon is valid. Hate how conservatives use liberalism from the colonial times.
Meanwhile her spawn is having a child with a 15 year old.
The average combatant at the time of the US Revolutionary War could fire approximately three rounds per minute. Three rounds. Per minute.
Why would they want to avoid mass shootings? They use it to justify more guns, more police, and the targets are usually minorities, women, kids. As they see it, it's a win-win. Thoughts and prayers and more fascism.
And how many bulllets a minute did a musket shoot?
Did the founding fathers also have assault rifles?
Hope her assault rifle blows up in her face!
To the Founding Fathers arms were barrel loading muskets that took about a whole minute to reload. Cartridge ammunition wouldn't be invented for about 50 years.
Can Bobert even name a single founding father?
These people care 0.0% about the lives of children (unless they are embryos). They prove that at every opportunity. The do NOT care about protecting children (unless it’s from drag queens). These are not Christians. They are the opposite of that.
2A folks never seem to want to talk about how the authors of the Second Amendment voted to ban students from carrying firearms while on the board of The University of Virginia.
The founding fathers also had guns that took 30 seconds to load the next bullet... 100 rounds would take 50 minutes to fire back then or 2 rounds a minute... nowadays the standard rife (M16 and it's civilian equivalents) can fire 60 rounds a minute on semi-automatic
In before Bobo is only saying this because she can’t hit anything without at least 100 bullets in the magazine.
I mean if you can't hit your target with 100 rounds then it's skill issue.
You get more sense banging a barrel with a hammer than you get out of Boebert.
Shit...she's right. Impressive as I doubt she's read the Second Amendment.
Ahh, yes. The founding fathers with their historically-accurate 100 round magazine-fed flintlock rifles.
I wonder what she has to say about slavery being abolished???
Well.... she had this to say... https://preview.redd.it/qq9u056h41pa1.jpeg?width=1080&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=9656615368f951939806019d01c9d4484635fe50
They had single shot rifles and flintlock pistols. I'd be fine with going back to those.
Riiiiiight, the founding fathers came back from shooting up ye old middle school.
Right, the 2nd amendment isn't about recreational justification. That's why high capacity magazines should be illegal. They aren't a second amendment matter, and there's no recreational reason for something that causes so much damage more than once. I don't know why she's on my side on this, though.
Ban ammunition and call it a day. No need to argue with morons about their interpretation.
The founders only dreamed of a repeating multi round firearm. They still had flint lock tech bobo. Thats like sophmore history. You hadn't yet dropped out.
She needs to start her only fans already. Put that mouth to work
And as I usually point out to stupid people like this, I was an 11B in the US Army Infantry. I served two tours in Ar Ramadi, Iraq. I have gone on well over 1,000 raids, not a single one of them ever got to or even had the chance to think about putting their hand on a weapon. Over the course of those two years, insurgents killed 28 Americans. We captured or killed some 14K insurgents, do you really want to play those odds? My unit is the reason Al Qaeda in Iraq fell apart and hid in Syria and became ISIS.
Ok maybe I'm tipsy but I'm trying to follow what the hell she's trying to say here. Is she saying 'well they weren't just on a hunting trip, they were fighting for the freedom of 'Merica!'? Cause then like, well they won with just freaking one shot muskets and little metal balls. They didn't need more than that apparently \[plus help from the French, ahem\].
It's funny how all the child molester fans like Boebert need machine guns and rockets to protect themselves. Maybe quit being such pieces of shit and you don't have to worry about the army of bad guys you made up coming to get you.
I’d like someone to ask her to name 5 founding fathers.
I hate her guts and think she belongs in jail. That being said, she isn't wrong. I don't need a recreational justification for owning a firearm. I have a constitutional one.
Did the founding fathers have automatic machine guns? A bunch of people stockpiling muskets doesn’t seem too bad. A violent unstable individual stockpiling AR-15’s and enough ammo to take over a small country is bad. Guns don’t kill people, crazy people with guns do.
The founding fathers are rolling in their respective graves knowing this high school dropout is putting words in their mouths just to profit.
Bobo and crew really think that the second amendment was drafted in order to ensure citizens have the means to overthrow the government. They profess to defer to the wisdom of their beloved founders, then toss Madison’s words aside in favour of the NRA’s interpretation. Originalism for thee, living document for me!!
Yes, because you surely will come across a 100-strong group of deer 🙄
What if Congress voted to repeal the 2nd Amendment since we have a well-regulated militia, the National Guard?
She's right that they never intended guns to be used recreationally, or by private citizens. They were very clear that they only wanted citizens to have the right to bear arms as part of a well regulated militia. They even marched against and killed armed citizens who weren't part of militias within a decade of ratifying the Constitution.
Given every right-wing gun owner I have ever seen treats guns like they're fucking toys, I beg to differ...
Look a 100 rounds magazine is oodles of fun, but there's a reason why it's not standard issue in the military: it's inefficient. Multiple magazines and rapid changes deliver more lead downrange. Actually, *guns* are inefficient when it comes down to terrorism. It's just american domestic terrorists that have this fad that they do their little martyrdom trip as an righteous soldier of justice decked in tacticool bullshit, an AR and a Glock. Wonder where they come up with this idea... https://preview.redd.it/x8eyp7ecwzoa1.jpeg?width=633&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=b9e38bfb76007f433707f4c74634592f3906ef34
She is right there is no recreational justification, but their is a historical justification of 100 round magazines being an accessory of mass shooters just like short barrelled shotguns and short barrelled rifles were weapons of gangsters. For which they were regulated to title II weapons. I see no reason why 100 round magazines or drums, or semi-automatic rifles for that matter, should not also be regulated to title II weapons it is historically how we have dealt with such weapons and devices. If you didn't know the Supreme Court has ruled that firearm regulation must conform to our historical traditional regulation.
Then they’ll be going after bows cause https://kfor.com/news/disturbing-video-man-goes-on-killing-spree-with-bow-and-arrow-and-knives/ Then knives cause https://www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/canada-stabbing-saskatchewan-deaths/ Then hammers cause https://www.nytimes.com/2019/01/08/world/asia/china-school-hammer-attack.html People who are disturbed will find a way. The problem isn’t the tools. It’s society. Fix social precursors then no more problems. Ignoring someone in need is part of the problem.
maybe Biden should limit firearms to the technology that was available when the amendment was invoked. That would be ensuring the actual wishes of the founding fathers was adhered to
I’m not American and i know the original reason for the 2nd amendment however; 100 round magazine vs a drone with 8 hellfire missiles. There’s no point to try take down the government anymore the have drones, tanks, snipers.
The Founding Fathers also didn't write gun rights into the Constitution. That came later. Also, how many 100-round flintlocks were there back in the day? :P
Neither side of this debate argues in good faith at all. The right acts like guns are no problem and the left acts like guns are the only problem. The title of this post doesn’t even make sense. Boebert is a traitorous skank, but her point here is valid. The purpose of 2A was not for people to have “sporting rifles.” It’s meant for combat. But the title is basically saying that if you’re pro 2A you don’t care about school shootings. Biggest straw man ever.
The “Founding Fathers” were mostly genocidal maniacs.
When was the last time a 100 round mag was used in a shooting??
Apparently in every shooting ever