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.
Using your logic fully automatic weapons would be available and on the shelves at any gun shop. Is that the type of infringement you are talking about? Should fully automatic weapons be on the shelves and available at any gun shop?
Yes
I'm sure 1 or 2 percent of the country agrees with you.
In your head only.
If they're subject to regulation, why aren't they regulated already?
Assault weapons can be regulated. You just can't process and accept what weapon falls under category of "assault weapon" or not.
US Army and Defense Department definitions of "assault rifle":
"Select fire" means it is capable of fully automatic or burst fire as well as semi-auto. "Semi-auto" means when the trigger is pulled the rifle will fire once, "full-auto" means that when the trigger is pulled the gun will fire until it runs out of ammo or the trigger is released.
Assault weapon uses an intermediate round that is accurate at least 300 meters away so more accurate than a submachine gun but less accurate than a hunting rifle.
The definition of assault rifle is clear and has only one meaning, despite of politicians trying to change the meaning to fit their narrative, where "every scary looking gun is an assault weapon". People who know nothing about weapons, such as yourself, and people who know very little or nothing about constitutional rights, such as yourself, are falling for that narrative. The rest of us are "not buying".
According to leftist proposed assault weapons bans the rifle on top would be legal while the rifle on the bottom would be an illegal assault weapon. In reality, they are the same model of rifle with the same firing spec, just looking different.
When the constitution mentions arms, they didn't differentiate between one type of arms or another. I'm pretty sure terms like select fire or assault weapon weren't even considered. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a problem with the constitutionality of regulating ALL arms. We can discuss whether all arms should be regulated in the same way if you would like, but it's clear that it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate them all in exactly the same way.
The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".
To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.
The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.
Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.
As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.
Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.
And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.
The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.
Of course you are a stupid confused Libtard that doesn't have a clue what "shall not be infringed" means. Everybody else knows that it means to not to infringe but you are confused about it like you are confused about many other issues. Like I said, pull your head out of your Libtard ass and you won't be so confused.
I've already proven that regulation, such as we already have for fully automatic weapons, is not the same as infringement. Of course I expect you to stick your head in the sand and say no, but you are wrong.
mods shouldn't use the funny button to ridicule posters. It's not professional.
Why not, the step into their pants same as anyone else
It's common practise for the NRA to count lifetime members as current members even after they have died.
Like the DNC?
A twofer. Two idiotic statements in one post. Good job. Do you think Hillary killed Epstein from her cell? She`s locked up you know.It's common practise for the NRA to count lifetime members as current members even after they have died.
Like the DNC?
Just a friendly reminder, Epstein did not kill himself.
And he will still vote for Democrats in November.
But they are still subject to being regulated..
In your head only.
If they're subject to regulation, why aren't they regulated already?
Assault weapons can be regulated. You just can't process and accept what weapon falls under category of "assault weapon" or not.
US Army and Defense Department definitions of "assault rifle":
"Assault rifles are short, compact, selective-fire weapons that fire a cartridge intermediate in power between sub machine gun and rifle cartridges."
"Assault rifles have mild recoil characteristics and, because of this, are capable of delivering effective full-automatic fire at ranges up to 300 meters."
"Select fire" means it is capable of fully automatic or burst fire as well as semi-auto. "Semi-auto" means when the trigger is pulled the rifle will fire once, "full-auto" means that when the trigger is pulled the gun will fire until it runs out of ammo or the trigger is released.
Assault weapon uses an intermediate round that is accurate at least 300 meters away so more accurate than a submachine gun but less accurate than a hunting rifle.
The definition of assault rifle is clear and has only one meaning, despite of politicians trying to change the meaning to fit their narrative, where "every scary looking gun is an assault weapon". People who know nothing about weapons, such as yourself, and people who know very little or nothing about constitutional rights, such as yourself, are falling for that narrative. The rest of us are "not buying".
According to leftist proposed assault weapons bans the rifle on top would be legal while the rifle on the bottom would be an illegal assault weapon. In reality, they are the same model of rifle with the same firing spec, just looking different.
When the constitution mentions arms, they didn't differentiate between one type of arms or another. I'm pretty sure terms like select fire or assault weapon weren't even considered. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a problem with the constitutionality of regulating ALL arms. We can discuss whether all arms should be regulated in the same way if you would like, but it's clear that it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate them all in exactly the same way.
The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".
To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.
The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.
Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.
As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.
Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.
And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.
The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.
As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.
The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.
They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?
Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.
Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.
If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.
In your head only.
If they're subject to regulation, why aren't they regulated already?
Assault weapons can be regulated. You just can't process and accept what weapon falls under category of "assault weapon" or not.
US Army and Defense Department definitions of "assault rifle":
"Select fire" means it is capable of fully automatic or burst fire as well as semi-auto. "Semi-auto" means when the trigger is pulled the rifle will fire once, "full-auto" means that when the trigger is pulled the gun will fire until it runs out of ammo or the trigger is released.
Assault weapon uses an intermediate round that is accurate at least 300 meters away so more accurate than a submachine gun but less accurate than a hunting rifle.
The definition of assault rifle is clear and has only one meaning, despite of politicians trying to change the meaning to fit their narrative, where "every scary looking gun is an assault weapon". People who know nothing about weapons, such as yourself, and people who know very little or nothing about constitutional rights, such as yourself, are falling for that narrative. The rest of us are "not buying".
According to leftist proposed assault weapons bans the rifle on top would be legal while the rifle on the bottom would be an illegal assault weapon. In reality, they are the same model of rifle with the same firing spec, just looking different.
When the constitution mentions arms, they didn't differentiate between one type of arms or another. I'm pretty sure terms like select fire or assault weapon weren't even considered. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a problem with the constitutionality of regulating ALL arms. We can discuss whether all arms should be regulated in the same way if you would like, but it's clear that it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate them all in exactly the same way.
The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".
To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.
The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.
Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.
As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.
Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.
And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.
The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.
As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.
The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.
They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?
Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.
Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.
If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.
Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.
When the constitution mentions arms, they didn't differentiate between one type of arms or another. I'm pretty sure terms like select fire or assault weapon weren't even considered. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a problem with the constitutionality of regulating ALL arms. We can discuss whether all arms should be regulated in the same way if you would like, but it's clear that it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate them all in exactly the same way.
The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".
To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.
The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.
Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.
As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.
Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.
And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.
The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.
As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.
The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.
They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?
Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.
Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.
If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.
Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.
Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols have been in common use in this country for over a hundred years. Heller says they cannot be taken away from us or banned.
For the UMPTEENTH TIME:Of course it is about the militia, or that clause would not precede the words you love to quote out of context.You already said that.and the right was given to the PEOPLE, not the militia.
PEOPLE which consisted those not fit for the militia,
Women, males under 16 and over 45, not to mention the lame and halt that weren't fit for duty in a militia.
I've probably said it over 50 times since I came to this board.
and people STILL don't seem to understand.
The 2nd amendment is NOT about the militia, it's about giving the PEOPLE the right to keep and bear arms.
For the UMPTEENTH TIME:
SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA et al. v. HELLER
certiorari to the united states court of appeals for the district of columbia circuit
No. 07–290. Argued March 18, 2008—Decided June 26, 2008
Held:
1. The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home. Pp. 2–53.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
(c) The Court’s interpretation is confirmed by analogous arms-bearing rights in state constitutions that preceded and immediately followed the Second Amendment . Pp. 28–30.
(d) The Second Amendment ’s drafting history, while of dubious interpretive worth, reveals three state Second Amendment proposals that unequivocally referred to an individual right to bear arms. Pp. 30–32.
(e) Interpretation of the Second Amendment by scholars, courts and legislators, from immediately after its ratification through the late 19th century also supports the Court’s conclusion. Pp. 32–47.
(f) None of the Court’s precedents forecloses the Court’s interpretation. Neither United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542 , nor Presser v. Illinois, 116 U. S. 252 , refutes the individual-rights interpretation. United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 , does not limit the right to keep and bear arms to militia purposes, but rather limits the type of weapon to which the right applies to those used by the militia, i.e., those in common use for lawful purposes. Pp. 47–54.
2. Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms. Miller’s holding that the sorts of weapons protected are those “in common use at the time” finds support in the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of dangerous and unusual weapons. Pp. 54–56.
3. The handgun ban and the trigger-lock requirement (as applied to self-defense) violate the Second Amendment . The District’s total ban on handgun possession in the home amounts to a prohibition on an entire class of “arms” that Americans overwhelmingly choose for the lawful purpose of self-defense. Under any of the standards of scrutiny the Court has applied to enumerated constitutional rights, this prohibition—in the place where the importance of the lawful defense of self, family, and property is most acute—would fail constitutional muster. Similarly, the requirement that any lawful firearm in the home be disassembled or bound by a trigger lock makes it impossible for citizens to use arms for the core lawful purpose of self-defense and is hence unconstitutional. Because Heller conceded at oral argument that the D. C. licensing law is permissible if it is not enforced arbitrarily and capriciously, the Court assumes that a license will satisfy his prayer for relief and does not address the licensing requirement. Assuming he is not disqualified from exercising Second Amendment rights, the District must permit Heller to register his handgun and must issue him a license to carry it in the home. Pp. 56–64.
478 F. 3d 370, affirmed.
------------------------
Why do you leftists keep making this stupid argument? Incessantly screeching about "militia" does not make it so. You're wrong. You've always been wrong. You will always be wrong.
Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues. The Court’s opinion should not be taken to cast doubt on longstanding prohibitions on the possession of firearms by felons and the mentally ill, or laws forbidding the carrying of firearms in sensitive places such as schools and government buildings, or laws imposing conditions and qualifications on the commercial sale of arms.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Why do you rightists keep making this stupid argument? Incessantly screeching about ‘gun control’ being ‘un-Constitutional’ does not make it so.
Firearm regulatory measures not invalidated by the Supreme Court in no manner ‘violate’ the Second Amendment – including AWBs, magazine capacity restrictions, and UBCs.
You're wrong. You've always been wrong. You will always be wrong.
Biden hasn’t been in school for quite a few yearsif some kid in school did what biden is doing in that photo.....he would be kicked out of school...
A twofer. Two idiotic statements in one post. Good job. Do you think Hillary killed Epstein from her cell? She`s locked up you know.It's common practise for the NRA to count lifetime members as current members even after they have died.
Like the DNC?
Just a friendly reminder, Epstein did not kill himself.
And he will still vote for Democrats in November.
In your head only.
If they're subject to regulation, why aren't they regulated already?
Assault weapons can be regulated. You just can't process and accept what weapon falls under category of "assault weapon" or not.
US Army and Defense Department definitions of "assault rifle":
"Select fire" means it is capable of fully automatic or burst fire as well as semi-auto. "Semi-auto" means when the trigger is pulled the rifle will fire once, "full-auto" means that when the trigger is pulled the gun will fire until it runs out of ammo or the trigger is released.
Assault weapon uses an intermediate round that is accurate at least 300 meters away so more accurate than a submachine gun but less accurate than a hunting rifle.
The definition of assault rifle is clear and has only one meaning, despite of politicians trying to change the meaning to fit their narrative, where "every scary looking gun is an assault weapon". People who know nothing about weapons, such as yourself, and people who know very little or nothing about constitutional rights, such as yourself, are falling for that narrative. The rest of us are "not buying".
According to leftist proposed assault weapons bans the rifle on top would be legal while the rifle on the bottom would be an illegal assault weapon. In reality, they are the same model of rifle with the same firing spec, just looking different.
When the constitution mentions arms, they didn't differentiate between one type of arms or another. I'm pretty sure terms like select fire or assault weapon weren't even considered. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a problem with the constitutionality of regulating ALL arms. We can discuss whether all arms should be regulated in the same way if you would like, but it's clear that it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate them all in exactly the same way.
The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".
To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.
The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.
Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.
As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.
Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.
And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.
The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.
As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.
The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.
They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?
Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.
Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.
If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.
Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.
The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".
To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.
The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.
Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.
As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.
Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.
And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.
The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.
As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.
The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.
They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?
Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.
Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.
If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.
Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.
Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols have been in common use in this country for over a hundred years. Heller says they cannot be taken away from us or banned.
OK. I never said anything about banning any type of weapon. There is no reason why they can't be regulated though.
When the constitution mentions arms, they didn't differentiate between one type of arms or another. I'm pretty sure terms like select fire or assault weapon weren't even considered. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a problem with the constitutionality of regulating ALL arms. We can discuss whether all arms should be regulated in the same way if you would like, but it's clear that it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate them all in exactly the same way.
The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".
To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.
The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.
Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.
As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.
Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.
And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.
The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.
As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.
The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.
They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?
Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.
Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.
If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.
Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.
I suspect you didn't read or do not understand what "“in common use for lawful purposes" means.
The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.
As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.
The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.
They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?
Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.
Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.
If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.
Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.
Semi-automatic rifles, shotguns, and pistols have been in common use in this country for over a hundred years. Heller says they cannot be taken away from us or banned.
OK. I never said anything about banning any type of weapon. There is no reason why they can't be regulated though.
There is "shall not be infringed" reason.
And still, you haven't said or make a case why semi auto guns should be regulated.
Then you are an idiot because they have never been that. You Moon Bats suffer from being low information and you believe that shit fake news the Liberal media puts out.
I have a problem with the NRA nowadays because they are too willing to give away our rights. I am a Life Member but I don't support them any more. I support the GAO.
Sure they were. At one time The NRA was all about gun safety.
You are confused once again Moon Bat. The NRA has leadership problems today but it ain't what the lying gun grabbers are telling you useful idiots.
Then why don't they say how many members they have? Trying to hide where their money comes from?
Yes....because asshats like you have begun to target donors to conservative groups.....they lose their jobs, and get harrassed by your brown shirts.
Just like you asshats sent the klan around to hang supporters of Freed blacks....
Sure, donors like Russia. The NRA spent 30 million to elect Trump, much of which came from Russia.
View attachment 310446
When the constitution mentions arms, they didn't differentiate between one type of arms or another. I'm pretty sure terms like select fire or assault weapon weren't even considered. Therefore, I'm having a hard time understanding why you have such a problem with the constitutionality of regulating ALL arms. We can discuss whether all arms should be regulated in the same way if you would like, but it's clear that it is constitutionally acceptable to regulate them all in exactly the same way.
The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".
To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.
The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.
Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.
As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.
Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.
And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.
The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.
Of course you are a stupid confused Libtard that doesn't have a clue what "shall not be infringed" means. Everybody else knows that it means to not to infringe but you are confused about it like you are confused about many other issues. Like I said, pull your head out of your Libtard ass and you won't be so confused.
I've already proven that regulation, such as we already have for fully automatic weapons, is not the same as infringement. Of course I expect you to stick your head in the sand and say no, but you are wrong.
You still haven't explained or proved WHY regulation is needed.
The same Constitution that you're calling on is securing our "unalienable rights".
To simplify it just for you, you have no right to kill someone, but you can defend yourself from being killed.
The 2nd Amendment is giving protecting your right to defend your life.
Every weapon can be used to attack or to defend. Therefore, every weapon can be called "assault weapon". If I use banana to choke you, that was "assault weapon". Left want's to label every weapon as "assault weapon", and without 2nd Amendment they would probably succeed. If semi-auto weapons are banned, what's next? Call hunting rifle a sniper, and simply ban it because it's weapon of war.
As I mentioned above, automatic weapons are considered assault weapons. Semi autos are not.
Although I don't agree with a statement that "you don't need machine gun to defend your home", and I think ban on automatic guns is unconstitutional, because state can still have them, I can accept not having one to defend my home.
And last, when the Constitution mentions freedom of press, they didn't differentiate between one type of news papers from another. I'm pretty sure terms like select cable TV, internet, or Twitter weren't even considered. However, freedom of press is constitutional right regardless of technical advancements we have today.
The term "assault weapon" has nothing to do with whether a weapon is constitutionally allowed to be regulated. As I said before, we can discuss which weapons should be regulated, and to what extent, but that is a different conversation for another time. My intent for now is to show the trite remark "will not be infringed" is bullshit and immaterial when it comes to whether we can or should regulate any weapon.
As I wrote above, it has everything to do with it. You have no right to assault anyone, and you have right to defend yourself. When you defending yourself, you're not doing anything illegal.
The Supreme Court ruled in DC V. Heller that all arms (meaning any weapon) “in common use for lawful purposes" can't be banned or heavily regulated like we did machine guns.
They essentially put in a supreme court ruling the same thing that gun owners have been saying for years: 99% of gun owners commit zero crimes with their firearms IN THEIR LIFE. Why should the law abiding gun owners be punished for the actions of the 1% of people who make a conscious choice to do evil and illegal things with their firearms?
Assuming all murders with guns are done with semi-automatic firearms, less than .005% of semi-automatic firearms are used in murders a year.
Assuming (incorrectly, but it pads the numbers towards the “gun control” side of things) that each murder is committed by a different person (for instance that 10 people killed in a mass shooting were killed by 10 different people) less than .016% of gun owners commit murder with their guns a year.
If all we look at is murders, as politicians like to do, then you want to punish and restrict 99.984% of a certain group based on the actions of the rest.
Heller didn't say guns couldn't be regulated. Quit lying.
I suspect you didn't read or do not understand what "“in common use for lawful purposes" means.
I'm sure you suspect lots of crazy stuff. Where does Heller say guns can't be regulated? Whether they are in common use doesn't matter for the purposes of regulation. All guns are already regulated in many aspects of their manufacture, sale, and use. Heller doesn't throw all that out, and it doesn't prevent changes in the existing regulations or the addition of new regulations. You've become accustom to pointing at Heller to justify anything you might want to spout, but it doesn't work that way. I would tell you to read it for yourself, but you've already made it clear that you are incapable of understanding it. Instead, you should ask a sane person to explain that part to you. Taking the word of another gun nut won't help you understand it.
Irrational fear.One more time, WHY do you think semi-auto guns should be banned or regulated?
Sure they were. At one time The NRA was all about gun safety.
You are confused once again Moon Bat. The NRA has leadership problems today but it ain't what the lying gun grabbers are telling you useful idiots.
Then why don't they say how many members they have? Trying to hide where their money comes from?
Yes....because asshats like you have begun to target donors to conservative groups.....they lose their jobs, and get harrassed by your brown shirts.
Just like you asshats sent the klan around to hang supporters of Freed blacks....
Sure, donors like Russia. The NRA spent 30 million to elect Trump, much of which came from Russia.
View attachment 310446
And hilary got 145 million from Russia......and she lost....
