Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
All I see here is your inability to soundly argue against my points.Again, that's what your Federalist judges say; that's not what the Constitution says
The volumes of text found in the rulings and opinions of Miller, Heller McDonald, Caetano and Bruen prove your claim false.. There's no constitutional basis behind your arguments,
The constitution says it is necessary.And we no longer do
ALL those cases establish restrictions on gunsAll I see here is your inability to soundly argue against my points.
The constitution exists in its case law; w/o case law, the constitution has no effect.
Thus, the rulings of the court and the effect of the constitution are inseparable.
You may not like the rulngs of the court, but you don't get to ignore them.
The volumes of text found in the rulings and opinions of Miller, Heller McDonald, Caetano and Bruen prove your claim false.
The Constitution said it was necessary when we had almost no standing Army.The constitution says it is necessary.
Your opinion to the contrary cannot mean less.
Likely not.It will only lower the rate of firearm homicides and the severity of mass killings, true.
www.factcheck.org
always,,,You are saying we have a need for a militia with a trillion dollar defense budget??
It does not matter how many times you repeat this lie, it remains a lie.ALL those cases establish restrictions on guns
Is necessary.The Constitution said it was necessary...
if thats what they meant they would have worded it that way,,The Constitution said it was necessary when we had almost no standing Army.
Is that the case now?
"Undue burden"?Given how ineffective AWBs in fact are, there’s no justification for such government excess and overreach, no justification for such an undue burden on the Second Amendment right.
When the AW ban ended the number of mass shootings exploded. So yea. It had an effect.Likely not.
The 1994 AWB failed to realize its goal:
“That the law did not have much of an impact on overall gun crime came as little surprise, Koper said. For one, assault weapons were used in only 2 percent of gun crimes before the ban. And second, existing weapons were grandfathered, meaning there were an estimated 1.5 million pre-ban assault weapons and 25 million to 50 million large-capacity magazines still in the U.S.”
Did the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban Work? - FactCheck.org
Both sides in the gun debate are misusing academic reports on the impact of the 1994 assault weapons ban, cherry-picking portions out of context to suit their arguments. Wayne LaPierre, chief executive officer of the National Rifle Association, told a Senate committee that the “ban had no impact...
Indeed, the 1994 AWB wasn’t actually a ‘ban,’ since millions of assault weapons remained in private possession, pursuant to the grandfather provision.
And any new ‘ban’ would have the same provision with millions of assault weapons still in the hands of private citizens.
Given how ineffective AWBs in fact are, there’s no justification for such government excess and overreach, no justification for such an undue burden on the Second Amendment right.
The right’s lies and demagoguery about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated,’ neither of which will happen, are intended to derail any substantive exploration of solutions to gun crime and violence.It happened in Australia and Canada. Why won't it happen here?
your premise is a lie,,,The right’s lies and demagoguery about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated,’ neither of which will happen, are intended to derail any substantive exploration of solutions to gun crime and violence.
For Republicans, lying about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated’ is valuable partisan rhetoric.
This is a dim-witted post-hoc fallacy.When the AW ban ended the number of mass shootings exploded. So yea. It had an effect.
As far as the ARs in circulation...they will eventually be turned in to gun buy backs, rusted away in closets etc. It will take time but they will be gone.
Why not? They might have used ARs in stock.And most importantly some sick little fucker will not be able to walk into the corner gun shop...buy one...and go kill a dozen kids...as has happened more than a few times
They did. Read it againif thats what they meant they would have worded it that way,,
They described the uses of the militia in the Constitution. Article 2 Section 8. To put DOWN Insurrection...not support ita standing army might be the very thing we need protection from,,,
AR bans on new sales yes. Confiscation? Nopeyour premise is a lie,,,
democrats are openly talking about bans and confiscation,,,
You mean "...all supported by the rhetoric of Democrats and liberals, every day..."The right’s lies and demagoguery about guns being ‘banned’ and ‘confiscated,...
In 15-20 years half would be inoperable. in 30 most would be rusted door stopsIf 100/day are remoived rom the market, by whatever means, , in ~275 years, there will be 10,000,000 left.
and they laid out how to have a ready to go militia by guaranteeing the peoples right to keep and bear arms,,They did. Read it again
They described the uses of the militia in the Constitution. Article 2 Section 8. To put DOWN Insurrection...not support it
Your is a statement of unfathomable ignorance, or unadulterated dishonesty.In 15-20 years half would be inoperable. in 30 most would be rusted door stops
