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 Second Amendment only guarantees a right to what was in existence when it was written.
Then you have no right to express yourself on da intrawebz...or to use a computer to do so. Funny how your own logic can come back and bite you in the ass, eh?
Except for the fact that there's no sound argument for necessity of the state to know who owns what guns.Gun registration is totally constitutional
Gun license / registration -- a sound argument? | US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum
No sound argument ? Guns are incredibly dangerous . Why wouldn't u want to know who's hands they are in?
The Second Amendment only guarantees a right to what was in existence when it was written.
Then you have no right to express yourself on da intrawebz...or to use a computer to do so. Funny how your own logic can come back and bite you in the ass, eh?
Speech is still speech.
The Second Amendment only guarantees a right to what was in existence when it was written.
Then you have no right to express yourself on da intrawebz...or to use a computer to do so. Funny how your own logic can come back and bite you in the ass, eh?
Speech is still speech.
As long as it is on handbills, pamphlets, and soapboxes.
Mindless nonsense.Like I said, sparky, speech is still speech. However "arms" are no longer ANYTHING like when the Second Amendment was written and ratified.
The law says:What did I say that wasn't true?Mindless nonsense.Like I said, sparky, speech is still speech. However "arms" are no longer ANYTHING like when the Second Amendment was written and ratified.
As usual.
More mindless nonsense.Would the Second Amendment allow someone to own and/or carry a nuclear pistol?
The law says:What did I say that wasn't true?Mindless nonsense.Like I said, sparky, speech is still speech. However "arms" are no longer ANYTHING like when the Second Amendment was written and ratified.
As usual.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Nothing you said is meaningful or relevant: mindless nonsense.
...concludes the village useful idiot.Therefore, I can own a nuclear pistol.The law says:What did I say that wasn't true?Mindless nonsense.Like I said, sparky, speech is still speech. However "arms" are no longer ANYTHING like when the Second Amendment was written and ratified.
As usual.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Nothing you said is meaningful or relevant: mindless nonsense.
...concludes the village useful idiot.Therefore, I can own a nuclear pistol.The law says:What did I say that wasn't true?Mindless nonsense.Like I said, sparky, speech is still speech. However "arms" are no longer ANYTHING like when the Second Amendment was written and ratified.
As usual.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Nothing you said is meaningful or relevant: mindless nonsense.
.... asks the village useful idiot.Where does the Second Amendment prevent me from legally owning a nuclear pistol?...concludes the village useful idiot.Therefore, I can own a nuclear pistol.The law says:What did I say that wasn't true?Mindless nonsense.
As usual.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Nothing you said is meaningful or relevant: mindless nonsense.
The Ds wouldn't be able to win a state if that happened.Give California to Mexico, deport all illegals in the country there.
Do you have one?...concludes the village useful idiot.Therefore, I can own a nuclear pistol.The law says:What did I say that wasn't true?Mindless nonsense.
As usual.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, e.g., Reno v. American Civil Liberties Union, 521 U. S. 844, 849 (1997) , and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search, e.g., Kyllo v. United States, 533 U. S. 27, 35–36 (2001) , the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Nothing you said is meaningful or relevant: mindless nonsense.
Where does the Second Amendment prevent me from legally owning a nuclear pistol?
The far left wants abortion....wants no compromise.
The far right wants total gun access....wants no compromise.
I love listening to the two of them squeal at each other about how wrong they are on each issue.
When, in many ways, it's really the same issue.
Perceived rights.
The difference being is one is guaranteed in the Constitution, the other is not.
So is it really the same issue?
Make CA a sanctuary state.. then we just send all the beaners there and let the fun begin... watch the whole thing just implode.
Better yet, give California back to those it was stolen from.
The far left wants abortion....wants no compromise.
The far right wants total gun access....wants no compromise.
I love listening to the two of them squeal at each other about how wrong they are on each issue.
When, in many ways, it's really the same issue.
Perceived rights.
The difference being is one is guaranteed in the Constitution, the other is not.
So is it really the same issue?
Absolutely.
First, gun rights are only guaranteed at the federal level in the constitution. In theory, there is nothing that prevents states from taking all guns away (except, of course, that they all pretty much have the 2nd written in their respective constitutions....which...why would they need if it the far left supremacy argument really were valid).
Second, it is about percieved rights. And right now, under our constitutional system we somehow believe we've made one a right (when really it isn't).
Gun control advocates are launching a new regulatory push in California to impose first-in-the-nation instant background checks for ammunition sales, a move that comes as gun violence surfaces as a lightning rod issue in the 2016 presidential race.
Lt. Gov. Gavin Newsom, a Democratic candidate for governor in 2018, joined with the Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence in announcing the initiative last week.
The November 2016 ballot initiative, which already is being slammed by the National Rifle Association and other gun rights groups, would make changes on several fronts.
It would require owners to turn in "large-capacity" magazines -- those holding 11 rounds or more -- and report when their weapons are stolen. Perhaps the most controversial provision would handle ammo sales like gun sales by requiring "point-of-sale background checks" for ammunition purchases; dealers also would need a license similar to those required to sell firearms.
As New York has backed off a similar initiative, California would be the first state to enact such background checks, if the initiative is successful. Four states -- Connecticut, Illinois, Massachusetts and New Jersey -- require ammunition purchasers to obtain permits ahead of time, according to the initiative's supporters.
The proposal comes in the wake of high-profile killings nationwide and three in the San Francisco Bay Area that were tied to stolen guns.
"Stuff doesn't just have to happen," Newsom said last week, responding to comments by Republican presidential candidate Jeb Bush about a recent mass shooting on an Oregon college campus. "We have the ability to step in with some common sense. We have the ability to protect our families."
But the National Rifle Association said Newsom's effort would chip away at Second Amendment rights.
Top California official pushes ammo background checks
So, since the Second Amendment says nothing about a right to ammunition or large-capacity magazines, it looks like California may be on to something. We shall see...
