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.
A Glock is no more a tool than a Vintage antique dueling pistol setWhy is that? I am not going bankrupt buying guns or ammo. I am a shooter, hunter and collector. And I have things that will help me protect my life and property. Much like a fire extinguisher.
It’s as true now as it was over a year ago – as true now as always:How about this for justification--"Because the 2nd amendment says I can." BTW, there is nothing in the constitution that says I have to demonstrate a "need" for any weapon and I certainly don't owe you, or any fascist, ANY explanations,
Especially sexually confused LiberalsYeah, the favorite pastime of leftist scum like you!
A
A Glock is no more a tool than a Vintage antique dueling pistol set
You mean California National Guard ?So you think you can withstand a frontal assault by infantry?
What do I have to defend?So you think you can withstand a frontal assault by infantry?
You mean California National Guard ?
What do I have to defend?
How many enemy infantry? Light? Mechanized? Expected support?
Where / when am I?
How many people do I have? Equipment? Support?
How long do I have to hold?
Friendlies to worry about?
Another loser looking scared.Everyone will have to get tactical and be an Operator in SHTF
Every firearm is a tool. It is nothing without the shooter .
The Chinese overseas Commandos are gonna go after Dams , Power infrastructure , Rail , Bridges ... when they are green lighted ( as they are already here by the thousands thanx to our open border policy ) not some poor schlub inFar Nor CalOk, if that is what you want to change it to. Previously you were fight the Chinese special forces. CA National Guard would be easier.
Your carrying water for Commies and don’t even know itYou're a fucking idiot. Adios cockroach.
certainly not you Gunaholics. You never have. Lot of bragging and toy soldiering. Why don’t you fking enlist instead of thinking you’re defending the homeland vs a herd of wild pigs in heat.Nah, that's YOUR desire.
We stop sick fucks, like you.
Wrong.The 2nd amendment is the only right that the opposition requires we show a need. No one is asked to show a need for free speech.
Wrong.The 2nd amendment does say the federal government shall make no laws regarding firearms at all.
It gave total jurisdiction to the states and municipalities.
All federal gun laws are totally illegal.
Wrong.
No one is required to document a ‘need’ to take possession of an AR 15, or any other firearm.
Indeed, the Bruen Court made that clear last year.
Tool- a device or implement, especially one held in the hand, used to carry out a particular function:A Weapon & a tool are not the same
Should this rifle be classified as a Class 3 firearm?...‘Usually, the motivation for purchasing the AR-15 is simple: People want one because they want one. Most times, the person who buys an AR-15 comes into the store already knowing that they intend to purchase one.
I’ve pressed some customers about why they want an AR-15, but no one could ever come up with a legitimate justification for needing that particular weapon.
Some members of the tinfoil hat brigade have come up with the reply, “We need these weapons because we want to be effective against the government if it becomes tyrannical. That’s part of our Second Amendment right.” Personally, I think that’s ludicrous, but it has become an increasingly popular justification for purchasing a semi-automatic rifle.
[…]
If banning them outright seems like too extreme a solution to be politically palatable, here’s another option: Reclassify semi-automatic rifles as Class 3 firearms.’
Opinion: Here's the reason people tell me they want to buy an AR-15. And it's simply ludicrous | CNN
No weapon has been more in the public eye than the AR-15, in large part because of the tragic role it has played in some of this country's deadliest shootings, former DC police officer Michael Fanone writes. Fanone, who owns one of the weapons, writes that the AR-15 has the dubious distinction...www.cnn.com
I disagree with the article’s author about ‘banning’ AR 15s or subjecting them to the provisions of the NFA. ‘Bans’ don’t work, they’re unwarranted government excess and overreach and likely un-Constitutional.
But he’s correct about wanting to own an AR 15 to ‘defend against government tyranny’ as being ridiculous nonsense.
Possessing an AR 15 is a want, not a ‘need.’
And there’s nothing wrong with that; citizens are not required to ‘justify’ exercising a fundamental right as a ‘prerequisite’ to indeed do so.
As is always the case after a mass shooting or similar event, we see inane, baseless reasons contrived to ‘justify’ owning an AR 15 in a pathetic and unnecessary attempt to fend-off a ‘ban’ of such weapons where there is no political will to do so.