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 last federal AWB did not require anyone to turn in their existing guns. You have been jacked up by your propagandists with this bullshit "DERE CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ ZOMG!!!!" horseshit.An AWB does not violate the 2nd Amendment, asshole.2nd amendment asshole.Checks and balances.By the way, isnt President Trump running this country and military? If we all gave up our guns, what is to stop him becoming a dictator? Or are you really that stupid?
YES, it most certainly does.
First of all, while no right is without restriction, the Bill of Rights, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments prohibit any federal weapons laws at all.
Then there is the fact the founders wrote the constitution with citizen soldiers in mind. There is not supposed to even be a standing federal military at all, and they wanted all homes to have military grade weapons.
There also is no such thing as an assault weapon, and historically pistols, shotguns, and small rifles have all been assault weapons at different time. The modern definition of an assault weapon is full auto, and there are no full auto weapons available new and without extensive licenses and checks, so any so called assault weapon ban is a hoax intended to band something entirely different.
There are already 30 million or so firearms the proposed bans would impact, and none of those are going to be turned in.
So are you actually going to support an illegal civil war just to accomplish a feel good ban that won't improve a single thing?
Anyone intent on mass murder/suicide, is not going to be deterred in the least by an AWB.
No, the voters of the other 43 states say they don't want an AWB. For now.but the other 43 states say otherwise.Again, seven states and the District of Columbia have an AWB.There is a precedent in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled uponIt if was unconstitutional, then ZERO states would have an AWB, retard.It's not Constitutional that's why it's not in my state.Seven states and DC have and AWB. They did not go house to house seizing guns.
Stop drinking your propagandists' piss. You look stupid.
Opinion of the Court
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
QED. An AWB is not unconstitutional.
How much more can I dumb that down so even you get it?
Again, seven states and the District of Columbia have an AWB.There is a precedent in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled uponIt if was unconstitutional, then ZERO states would have an AWB, retard.It's not Constitutional that's why it's not in my state.Seven states and DC have and AWB. They did not go house to house seizing guns.
Stop drinking your propagandists' piss. You look stupid.
Opinion of the Court
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
QED. An AWB is not unconstitutional.
How much more can I dumb that down so even you get it?
The last AWB was not the law of the land long enough to have a positive effect.The last federal AWB did not require anyone to turn in their existing guns. You have been jacked up by your propagandists with this bullshit "DERE CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ ZOMG!!!!" horseshit.An AWB does not violate the 2nd Amendment, asshole.2nd amendment asshole.Checks and balances.
YES, it most certainly does.
First of all, while no right is without restriction, the Bill of Rights, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments prohibit any federal weapons laws at all.
Then there is the fact the founders wrote the constitution with citizen soldiers in mind. There is not supposed to even be a standing federal military at all, and they wanted all homes to have military grade weapons.
There also is no such thing as an assault weapon, and historically pistols, shotguns, and small rifles have all been assault weapons at different time. The modern definition of an assault weapon is full auto, and there are no full auto weapons available new and without extensive licenses and checks, so any so called assault weapon ban is a hoax intended to band something entirely different.
There are already 30 million or so firearms the proposed bans would impact, and none of those are going to be turned in.
So are you actually going to support an illegal civil war just to accomplish a feel good ban that won't improve a single thing?
Anyone intent on mass murder/suicide, is not going to be deterred in the least by an AWB.
The last Assault Weapons Ban was totally ineffectual and stupid, and everyone bypassed it by turning the pistol grip into a thumb hole stock. No weapons were prevented from sale by the 1993 Clinton AWB.
There also were almost no ARs in public ownership back then because they were too expensive. So no one cared. Now they have come down in price as being about the least expensive. Now tens of millions of people care a great deal.
Trump believes America deserves an Assault Weapons Ban and longer wait times to buy a gun.
When Clinton did the assault weapons ban, there weren't any assault weapons used at Columbine. It PROVED that Clintons law was full of shit.The last AWB was not the law of the land long enough to have a positive effect.The last federal AWB did not require anyone to turn in their existing guns. You have been jacked up by your propagandists with this bullshit "DERE CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ ZOMG!!!!" horseshit.An AWB does not violate the 2nd Amendment, asshole.2nd amendment asshole.
YES, it most certainly does.
First of all, while no right is without restriction, the Bill of Rights, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 9th and 10th amendments prohibit any federal weapons laws at all.
Then there is the fact the founders wrote the constitution with citizen soldiers in mind. There is not supposed to even be a standing federal military at all, and they wanted all homes to have military grade weapons.
There also is no such thing as an assault weapon, and historically pistols, shotguns, and small rifles have all been assault weapons at different time. The modern definition of an assault weapon is full auto, and there are no full auto weapons available new and without extensive licenses and checks, so any so called assault weapon ban is a hoax intended to band something entirely different.
There are already 30 million or so firearms the proposed bans would impact, and none of those are going to be turned in.
So are you actually going to support an illegal civil war just to accomplish a feel good ban that won't improve a single thing?
Anyone intent on mass murder/suicide, is not going to be deterred in the least by an AWB.
The last Assault Weapons Ban was totally ineffectual and stupid, and everyone bypassed it by turning the pistol grip into a thumb hole stock. No weapons were prevented from sale by the 1993 Clinton AWB.
There also were almost no ARs in public ownership back then because they were too expensive. So no one cared. Now they have come down in price as being about the least expensive. Now tens of millions of people care a great deal.
There are a shitload of assault weapons already out there. The last AWB did not ban the possession of existing assault weapons. So you could go to a gun show and still find assault rifles to buy.
It will take a long time for existing guns to fall into disuse/disrepair.
Until challenged.California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C. (so much for the Heller argument) all ban the possession of assault weapons.
QED. An AWB does not violate the 2nd Amendment.
See youI've looked at the gun control laws of Canada, and I would still be allowed to own a gun if I lived there. I'd even be allowed to own an AR-15.
And yet they have a tiny, tiny, tiny, tiny fraction of the rate of gun homicides than the US.
Define Assault Weapon. To a Liberal, an assault weapon is literally anything that holds more than 6 bullets.Trump is willing too -
Poll: Majority of Republicans Supports ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban
blood pressure medicine sales must be over the top ........
Did you look at the link I provided? California has had their AWB for decades. Long before Heller.Until challenged.California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C. (so much for the Heller argument) all ban the possession of assault weapons.
QED. An AWB does not violate the 2nd Amendment.
.
they've been squealing like pigs since Trump took office.but the other 43 states say otherwise. I just gave you a supreme court ruling and you're still whining?Again, seven states and the District of Columbia have an AWB.There is a precedent in the courts going as far back as U.S. vs Miller 1939 and U.S. vs Lewis 1980 affirming what Miller ruled uponIt if was unconstitutional, then ZERO states would have an AWB, retard.It's not Constitutional that's why it's not in my state.Seven states and DC have and AWB. They did not go house to house seizing guns.
Stop drinking your propagandists' piss. You look stupid.
Opinion of the Court
In order for a firearm to be protected by the second amendment, it must have some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia, in common use of the time, and supplied by the citizen.
QED. An AWB is not unconstitutional.
How much more can I dumb that down so even you get it?
Trump is willing too -
Poll: Majority of Republicans Supports ‘Assault Weapons’ Ban
blood pressure medicine sales must be over the top ........
Has California's AWB been challenged before the SCOTUS?Did you look at the link I provided? California has had their AWB for decades. Long before Heller.Until challenged.California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C. (so much for the Heller argument) all ban the possession of assault weapons.
QED. An AWB does not violate the 2nd Amendment.
.
Nice try.
Wasn't it assault weapons used in the San Bernardino Christmas party massacre, that Obama called work place violence?Did you look at the link I provided? California has had their AWB for decades. Long before Heller.Until challenged.California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C. (so much for the Heller argument) all ban the possession of assault weapons.
QED. An AWB does not violate the 2nd Amendment.
.
Nice try.
Until challenged.Caifornia banned assault weapons in 1989.
QED. An AWB is not unconstitutional.
The NRA challenged California's law in federal court.Has California's AWB been challenged before the SCOTUS?Did you look at the link I provided? California has had their AWB for decades. Long before Heller.Until challenged.California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Maryland, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, and Washington, D.C. (so much for the Heller argument) all ban the possession of assault weapons.
QED. An AWB does not violate the 2nd Amendment.
.
Nice try.
Nice try.
.
