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.
The argument is well made and proven by the idiocy of Democrats passing such sweeping gun grabbing Nazi laws within 6 months of a genral election.The road to total gun control, one step at a time. Guaranteed that people with a poor credit rating will be in the gun grabbers sights one day. Irresponsible with your finances, then you're probably going to be irresponsible with your firearms. Maybe first they'll go after people with bad driving records.
The Slippery Slope is a fallacy in which a person asserts that some event must inevitably follow from another without any argument for the inevitability of the event in question
But that choice is not one Libtards wish to allow.
Hopefully, this will be another instance of that phenomenon of California being a trendsetter for the rest of the country. Stuff that starts in CA usually moves east.
These new laws will not forbid individuals from forming a well-regulated militia, as stated in the 2nd Amendment.
The second amendment says nothing about the right to form a well regulated militia. It does says that it is a right for the PEOPLE to bare arms.
Wrong, Scalia said this in Heller, he also stated the 2nd A. was not an absolute right. Lies by omission are still lies, but you know this! And that makes you a liar.
The 2nd A. wording has been parsed over and over, it what you posted was true, the 2nd would not have included the first two phrases: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
Militias were made up from the people, but not all people were eligible to join the militia.
The second amendment isn't just about militias. Chanting your retarded world view over and over doesn't bring it any closer to reality, it just proves you are an idiot.Hopefully, this will be another instance of that phenomenon of California being a trendsetter for the rest of the country. Stuff that starts in CA usually moves east.
These new laws will not forbid individuals from forming a well-regulated militia, as stated in the 2nd Amendment.
Taking guns from someone said to be suicidal is an over react by the nanny state. Sane people need to leave California like I did back in the 80s, it is circling the drain.
Hopefully, this will be another instance of that phenomenon of California being a trendsetter for the rest of the country. Stuff that starts in CA usually moves east.
These new laws will not forbid individuals from forming a well-regulated militia, as stated in the 2nd Amendment.
The second amendment says nothing about the right to form a well regulated militia. It does says that it is a right for the PEOPLE to bare arms.
Wrong, Scalia said this in Heller, he also stated the 2nd A. was not an absolute right. Lies by omission are still lies, but you know this! And that makes you a liar.
The 2nd A. wording has been parsed over and over, it what you posted was true, the 2nd would not have included the first two phrases: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
Militias were made up from the people, but not all people were eligible to join the militia.
That is not a reasonable explanation.
Yet it does open the question, why were some people not eligible to join the Militia? And why would the States be given the authority the appointment of officers and the training of the Militia - can't we infer that as part of the training some individuals would be unfit, and rejected from service. Such a rejection might have been due to mental illness, drunkenness or loyalty to the British Crown? So, I ask again, why would any sane, sober and responsible community / State / nation allow such persons to own or possess a gun, be it a single action revolver or a Glock 19 with a large capacity magazine?
why were some people not eligible to join the Militia?
Why are you against her choice?Hopefully, this will be another instance of that phenomenon of California being a trendsetter for the rest of the country. Stuff that starts in CA usually moves east.
These new laws will not forbid individuals from forming a well-regulated militia, as stated in the 2nd Amendment.
The second amendment says nothing about the right to form a well regulated militia. It does says that it is a right for the PEOPLE to bare arms.
Wrong, Scalia said this in Heller, he also stated the 2nd A. was not an absolute right. Lies by omission are still lies, but you know this! And that makes you a liar.
The 2nd A. wording has been parsed over and over, it what you posted was true, the 2nd would not have included the first two phrases: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
Militias were made up from the people, but not all people were eligible to join the militia.
That is not a reasonable explanation.
Yet it does open the question, why were some people not eligible to join the Militia? And why would the States be given the authority the appointment of officers and the training of the Militia - can't we infer that as part of the training some individuals would be unfit, and rejected from service. Such a rejection might have been due to mental illness, drunkenness or loyalty to the British Crown? So, I ask again, why would any sane, sober and responsible community / State / nation allow such persons to own or possess a gun, be it a single action revolver or a Glock 19 with a large capacity magazine?
Liberal Think:The second amendment isn't just about militias. Chanting your retarded world view over and over doesn't bring it any closer to reality, it just proves you are an idiot.Hopefully, this will be another instance of that phenomenon of California being a trendsetter for the rest of the country. Stuff that starts in CA usually moves east.
These new laws will not forbid individuals from forming a well-regulated militia, as stated in the 2nd Amendment.
Taking guns from someone said to be suicidal is an over react by the nanny state. Sane people need to leave California like I did back in the 80s, it is circling the drain.
- A woman should have the unlimited right to decide whether her unborn child lives or dies.
- American citizens should NOT have the unlimited right to protect themselves, so they should not be allowed to possess guns.
(exceptions for the elites and military...and of course criminals, but liberals are not aware that criminals don't abide by the law)
Absolutely nowhere in my post, did I refer to your OP. Can you comprehend the written word?Liberal Think:The second amendment isn't just about militias. Chanting your retarded world view over and over doesn't bring it any closer to reality, it just proves you are an idiot.Hopefully, this will be another instance of that phenomenon of California being a trendsetter for the rest of the country. Stuff that starts in CA usually moves east.
These new laws will not forbid individuals from forming a well-regulated militia, as stated in the 2nd Amendment.
Taking guns from someone said to be suicidal is an over react by the nanny state. Sane people need to leave California like I did back in the 80s, it is circling the drain.
- A woman should have the unlimited right to decide whether her unborn child lives or dies.
- American citizens should NOT have the unlimited right to protect themselves, so they should not be allowed to possess guns.
(exceptions for the elites and military...and of course criminals, but liberals are not aware that criminals don't abide by the law)
That's your personal "think". Absolutely nowhere in my O/P or the link does it say an American citizen doesn't have the right to protect themselves. Why don't you take a minute to read before you type, because that's all your post is: typing.
Why are you against her choice?View attachment 80242Hopefully, this will be another instance of that phenomenon of California being a trendsetter for the rest of the country. Stuff that starts in CA usually moves east.
These new laws will not forbid individuals from forming a well-regulated militia, as stated in the 2nd Amendment.
The second amendment says nothing about the right to form a well regulated militia. It does says that it is a right for the PEOPLE to bare arms.
Wrong, Scalia said this in Heller, he also stated the 2nd A. was not an absolute right. Lies by omission are still lies, but you know this! And that makes you a liar.
The 2nd A. wording has been parsed over and over, it what you posted was true, the 2nd would not have included the first two phrases: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
Militias were made up from the people, but not all people were eligible to join the militia.
That is not a reasonable explanation.
Yet it does open the question, why were some people not eligible to join the Militia? And why would the States be given the authority the appointment of officers and the training of the Militia - can't we infer that as part of the training some individuals would be unfit, and rejected from service. Such a rejection might have been due to mental illness, drunkenness or loyalty to the British Crown? So, I ask again, why would any sane, sober and responsible community / State / nation allow such persons to own or possess a gun, be it a single action revolver or a Glock 19 with a large capacity magazine?
If the NRA brings a lawsuit regarding the ammo sales, and they decide Cabela's is at a disadvantage for mail order sales from out of state, then you could be right. Otherwise the SCOTUS has recently let local assault weapons bans stand, in which case you could be wrong.These laws will not withstand a constitutional challenge.
Let me know how the new laws keep another mass murder not to happen.
Well Sacramento did not pick on handguns -- other than those which hold more than 10 rounds -- and they did not pick on long guns -- other than those that can hold more than 10 rounds.New California Law Lowers the Bar for Gun Seizures
Legislation allows temporary confiscation of guns from people considered a danger to themselves or others
"""....
California, which already has some of the toughest gun restrictions in the nation, this week moved forward with a sweeping new package of gun control laws that underscores the power of the Democratically controlled state to carve its own path on the issue. On Friday, Gov. Jerry Brown signed six gun-control bills into law, including an expansion of the 1989 law known as the assault weapons ban.
Under the confiscation law, which went into effect in January, California residents can lose their weapons without being convicted of a crime, or being institutionalized. Police or immediate family members must persuade a judge to sign off on what is called a gun violence restraining order, which lasts up to 21 days, but can be extended. (O/P's note: Fantastic!)
The law has so far been used to seize guns in 33 cases, in some instances from mentally unstable people who had made threats or were suicidal, according to data through mid-June provided to The Wall Street Journal by the California attorney general and law-enforcement agencies."""
New California Law Lowers the Bar for Gun Seizures
It is very convenient that California give us all an example of how much they want to take our guns away by any contrivance imaginable so close to the general election.
Hopefully, this will be another instance of that phenomenon of California being a trendsetter for the rest of the country. Stuff that starts in CA usually moves east.
These new laws will not forbid individuals from forming a well-regulated militia, as stated in the 2nd Amendment.
The second amendment says nothing about the right to form a well regulated militia. It does says that it is a right for the PEOPLE to bare arms.
Wrong, Scalia said this in Heller, he also stated the 2nd A. was not an absolute right. Lies by omission are still lies, but you know this! And that makes you a liar.
The 2nd A. wording has been parsed over and over, it what you posted was true, the 2nd would not have included the first two phrases: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
Militias were made up from the people, but not all people were eligible to join the militia.
That is not a reasonable explanation.
Yet it does open the question, why were some people not eligible to join the Militia? And why would the States be given the authority the appointment of officers and the training of the Militia - can't we infer that as part of the training some individuals would be unfit, and rejected from service. Such a rejection might have been due to mental illness, drunkenness or loyalty to the British Crown? So, I ask again, why would any sane, sober and responsible community / State / nation allow such persons to own or possess a gun, be it a single action revolver or a Glock 19 with a large capacity magazine?
why were some people not eligible to join the Militia?
age/sex.
In most areas, militia was able bodied men between the ages of 16-45, others, 16-57.
Females were not allowed to join a militia, no matter their age.
Just w start you dumbass, liberals are never satisfied.Why are you against her choice?View attachment 80242The second amendment says nothing about the right to form a well regulated militia. It does says that it is a right for the PEOPLE to bare arms.
Wrong, Scalia said this in Heller, he also stated the 2nd A. was not an absolute right. Lies by omission are still lies, but you know this! And that makes you a liar.
The 2nd A. wording has been parsed over and over, it what you posted was true, the 2nd would not have included the first two phrases: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
Militias were made up from the people, but not all people were eligible to join the militia.
That is not a reasonable explanation.
Yet it does open the question, why were some people not eligible to join the Militia? And why would the States be given the authority the appointment of officers and the training of the Militia - can't we infer that as part of the training some individuals would be unfit, and rejected from service. Such a rejection might have been due to mental illness, drunkenness or loyalty to the British Crown? So, I ask again, why would any sane, sober and responsible community / State / nation allow such persons to own or possess a gun, be it a single action revolver or a Glock 19 with a large capacity magazine?
Let's just humor your ignorant ass for a minute: If she poses a threat to that kid she's holding, or if she has posed a threat to others by action or deed, then there would be a 21-day holding period for examination that would be signed off by a judge before she could buy that gun.
Try READING at least a full minute before posting and showing your ignorance.
Just w start you dumbass, liberals are never satisfied.Why are you against her choice?View attachment 80242The second amendment says nothing about the right to form a well regulated militia. It does says that it is a right for the PEOPLE to bare arms.
Wrong, Scalia said this in Heller, he also stated the 2nd A. was not an absolute right. Lies by omission are still lies, but you know this! And that makes you a liar.
The 2nd A. wording has been parsed over and over, it what you posted was true, the 2nd would not have included the first two phrases: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State"
Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
Please explain why these two phrases were included, if the original intent was solely: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed"?
Militias were made up from the people, but not all people were eligible to join the militia.
That is not a reasonable explanation.
Yet it does open the question, why were some people not eligible to join the Militia? And why would the States be given the authority the appointment of officers and the training of the Militia - can't we infer that as part of the training some individuals would be unfit, and rejected from service. Such a rejection might have been due to mental illness, drunkenness or loyalty to the British Crown? So, I ask again, why would any sane, sober and responsible community / State / nation allow such persons to own or possess a gun, be it a single action revolver or a Glock 19 with a large capacity magazine?
Let's just humor your ignorant ass for a minute: If she poses a threat to that kid she's holding, or if she has posed a threat to others by action or deed, then there would be a 21-day holding period for examination that would be signed off by a judge before she could buy that gun.
Try READING at least a full minute before posting and showing your ignorance.
New California Law Lowers the Bar for Gun Seizures
Legislation allows temporary confiscation of guns from people considered a danger to themselves or others
"""....
California, which already has some of the toughest gun restrictions in the nation, this week moved forward with a sweeping new package of gun control laws that underscores the power of the Democratically controlled state to carve its own path on the issue. On Friday, Gov. Jerry Brown signed six gun-control bills into law, including an expansion of the 1989 law known as the assault weapons ban.
Under the confiscation law, which went into effect in January, California residents can lose their weapons without being convicted of a crime, or being institutionalized. Police or immediate family members must persuade a judge to sign off on what is called a gun violence restraining order, which lasts up to 21 days, but can be extended. (O/P's note: Fantastic!)
The law has so far been used to seize guns in 33 cases, in some instances from mentally unstable people who had made threats or were suicidal, according to data through mid-June provided to The Wall Street Journal by the California attorney general and law-enforcement agencies."""
New California Law Lowers the Bar for Gun Seizures
