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.
Actually you won't answer it because...I'd answer you with a reasoned, nuanced and thoughtful response, but I know what you'd do with it. I've simply seen you lie too many times about what a post actually says to think you are here for anything even remotely serious.
No more is needed other than the technology of the day that any light infantry ought to have. Which today means semiautomatic rifles, pistols and shotguns with high capacity magazines.You selection. I thought it needed more. You wouldn't understand.
Only a dumbass feels as you do, you probably don't support Ukraine having guns eitherPrecisely why the 2nd needs scrapped to get the real gun nuts off guns.
Good because you are stupidest fucking idiot I have ever encountered. If you were my neighbor, you would have blood spewing out of you a lot.Statement: "I stand with the constitution, go fuck yourself fucktard"
Response: More worthless posting, thus the ignore button was my response.
They wouldn't be covered by the Heller ruling. But they would be covered under the Miller ruling if the courts ever decided to enforce that.What about anti-tank weapons?
Clean tactical nukes (especially those new B61-12 bombs that we're about to deploy in Europe to deter Russian aggression) would be useful to a militia that was repelling a foreign invasion, but they would not be possessed by individuals.Maybe some tactical nukes?
I suppose I'm fairly new here, but I've never seen him lie.I've simply seen you lie too many times about what a post actually says to think you are here for anything even remotely serious.
Do you have any idea what is required to pass or amend an amendment?Precisely why the 2nd needs scrapped to get the real gun nuts off guns.
Cardinal Carminative Captain Caveman
"And that the said Constitution be never construed to authorize Congress to infringe the just liberty of the Press, or the rights of Conscience; or to prevent the people of the United States, WHO ARE PEACEABLE CITIZENS, from keeping their own arms; …"
Samuel Adams quoted in the Philadelphia Independent Gazetteer, August 20, 1789, "Propositions submitted to the Convention of this State"
Do you have any idea what is required to pass or amend an amendment?
I suppose I'm fairly new here, but I've never seen him lie.
ummm.... because the Constitution should never be construed to authorize Congress to infringe upon the people from keeping their own arms???...and that is important to the discussion...why?
Great, then share with us what would be required. It's a steep bar to pass.It has literally NEVER BEEN DONE BEFORE! Oh wait, yeah, it has. A lot.
But some guy online says it would be hard so we should probably just assume it can't be done.
Oh, don't act so stunned. I learned my point long ago from reading 2nd Amendment nuts like you droning on and on about it:If you had a point other than an untrue personal attack, you failed to make it sufficiently clear. I had thought that your only point was the untrue personal attack.
Part of your mission from the gun manufacturers association (NRA) is annoyingly correcting everyone who says "gun" here instead of "firearm." It's in your employment contract. Best read it while you still can. They may just stop paying you and start paying me instead.Now it's "arms," but the topic is about "guns," i.e. "firearms" which didn't exist "thousands of years ago."
as understood today, guns and firearms did not exist in 1066 and, like it or not, this topic is about guns, not just any old "arms." Now continue dividing and trolling like the silly goose you are..The earliest recorded use of the term "gonne" was in a Latin document circa 1339.
That is factually incorrect. The NRA is not the gun manufacturers association.the gun manufacturers association (NRA)
After the spread of guns in England, it didn't take very long at all (1541 as I recall) before it was codified into law that English commoners had the right to have guns, the right to practice shooting guns, and the right to use guns to defend their homes from common criminals.The larger point is that, while gunpowder was invented in the 9th century, there was no knowledge of it in Europe until the 12th century -- long after 1066.
The left likes to claim that "fact is opinion" because leftists really really hate facts. Facts always undermine the left's demented ideology.By the way, useful "debate" requires both of the elements the provided above. Not just opinion asserted as though fact, but a linked authoritative source provided which essentially states the same in a coherent, compelling manner, and with sources of its own provided demonstrating a well informed product as opposed to just some hack on the internet pretending to know everything. But I digress.
The right to keep and bear arms is highly relevant here even though the origin of the right did not involve guns.as understood today, guns and firearms did not exist in 1066 and, like it or not, this topic is about guns, not just any old "arms."
Your accusation of trolling is false and untrue.Now continue dividing and trolling like the silly goose you are..
I support all countries with a safe gun culture.Only a dumbass feels as you do, you probably don't support Ukraine having guns either
Gun nut is a polite descriptive phrasePolite discussion is much more productive than ranting and name-calling.
Yes, it's been covered a thousand times.Do you have any idea what is required to pass or amend an amendment?
The 94 AWB’s effectiveness was mixed at best:Unfortunately the assault weapons ban from the late 90's to the early 2000's did seem to correlate with a significant drop in mass shootings.
Northwestern Study Says 1994-2004 Federal Assault Weapons Ban Worked
The last assault weapons ban expired in 2004, but a new study finds that had that ban remained in place, as many as 30 mass shootings could have been prevented. We speak with the study's lead author, Lori Ann Post, and Richard Pearson, executive director of the Illinois State Rifle Association.news.wttw.com
I generally tend to agree. But gun restrictions MUST be considered as part of the overall "fix". We need improved social safety nets and better welfare programs as well as a general strengthening of control over the guns (or at least oversight).
I agree. We REALLY need to deal with poverty and social inequality in this country and that might move the ball down the field moreso than what we've tried so far.
www.factcheck.org
Yes, you guys run on Toxic Individualism. We know that. Forget the word "Rights" and replace in with "Responsibilities". Then embrace others and go and be "Responsible" in society.I don't know anyone like that. I just know peaceable law abiding citizens who can't understand why gun nuts want to take away their constitutional rights because someone else broke a law.
In America we have individual rights, not group rights.
