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.
33 gun deaths every day
35 thousand since Sandy Hook
2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill
But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.
now if you liberal douchebags could only come up with a way of doing that without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.
another fact you better face, the only nutters in the minority are gun grabbers. You learned how much pull you really had when you failed to exploit the deaths of school children. You shot your load and it was blanks.
And now no children are any safer. Great big win for the gun nuts right?
The legacy of the gun nuts:
January's Epidemic: 11 School Shootings in 19 Days - The Wire
33 gun deaths every day
35 thousand since Sandy Hook
2nd leading cause of death, ages 15-19
95% of Americans are in favor laws to get guns away from criminals, terrorists, drug dealers, mentally ill
But we still cater to a small minority of nutters who want everyone armed and shooting at each other.
now if you liberal douchebags could only come up with a way of doing that without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.
another fact you better face, the only nutters in the minority are gun grabbers. You learned how much pull you really had when you failed to exploit the deaths of school children. You shot your load and it was blanks.
And now no children are any safer. Great big win for the gun nuts right?
The legacy of the gun nuts:
January's Epidemic: 11 School Shootings in 19 Days - The Wire
Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
But yet you can't buy a brand new 2014 full auto gun. The country is a better place because of that.
And once again the liberal illustrates their complete and total ignorance in front of the world.
It is 100% legal to purchase a fully automatic gun. Furthermore, it is legal to purchase a fully automatic gun with a silencer. I shoot them all the time.
Yes - they do require specific paperwork to be submitted to the ATF. But they are legal to buy and are sold all over America every day.
now if you liberal douchebags could only come up with a way of doing that without infringing on the rights of law abiding citizens.
another fact you better face, the only nutters in the minority are gun grabbers. You learned how much pull you really had when you failed to exploit the deaths of school children. You shot your load and it was blanks.
And now no children are any safer. Great big win for the gun nuts right?
The legacy of the gun nuts:
January's Epidemic: 11 School Shootings in 19 Days - The Wire
And what do all 11 of those schools have in common? No guns. The complete and total absence of guns. Now lets look at places were guns were prevalent:
White House (0 shootings in the month of January)
Police Stations (0 shootings in the month of January)
NRA meetings (0 shootings in the month of January)
Area 51 (0 shootings in the month of January)
Fort Knox (0 shootings in the month of January)
Wow - the math is shockingly clear here. Only an idiot Dumbocrat couldn't figure this one out.
There is a big difference between "collapse" and "problem". Change your narrative much?
You really can't follow along very well can you?
I do follow along very well - which is why I'm able to illustrate just how dumb you are.
You said the world would "collapse". When I proved it wouldn't (the Amish being among the most obvious proof), you them came back with the childish "oh, so it would be no problem"?
Of course it would be a problem. But it wouldn't "collapse" the world.
Now tell us again junior how nobody can buy a fully automatic gun in 2014...
When you have nothing, just call it crap.You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms? Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?
When one has no valid argument they resort to crap like you just did.
First you say your right to bear arms can't be violated, then you say the 5th can violate your rights. Do you need a minute to make up your mind?Actually, it specifically addresses that.You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.
"The right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."
Seriously, if you don't know what 'infringed" means, Google it. But the upshot is that you can bear any weapon you want.
Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms? Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?
Dude, you asked and I answered this. From the Fifth Amendment:
"No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law."
You can remove the right to bear arms if you have gone through the DUE PROCESS OF LAW. Again, if you don't know what that means, Google it. Don't just keep repeating the question. The answer to your question is very straight forward and it's black and white. You can remove those rights, but only through the due process of law.
Ok. Then I'm for banning some guns also, like Feinstein. Your right to bear arms still is intact. You can't buy a cruise missile either. What's the big deal? You can still have a lot of different kinds of guns.
Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
But yet you can't buy a brand new 2014 full auto gun. The country is a better place because of that.
You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.Ok. Then I'm for banning some guns also, like Feinstein. Your right to bear arms still is intact. You can't buy a cruise missile either. What's the big deal? You can still have a lot of different kinds of guns.
Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms? Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?
Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
But yet you can't buy a brand new 2014 full auto gun. The country is a better place because of that.
Yes I can. And so can any law abiding citizen that wishes to submit an application the BATFE, go through a background check, submit fingerprints, pay a one time fee for a federal tax stamp. Basically what you need is a class 3 firearms permit, the requirements and cost may vary from state to state.
You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms? Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?
Sure it did, as long as it falls under the definition of arms.
Your second point has already been addressed. Please pay better attention.
Ok. Then I'm for banning some guns also, like Feinstein. Your right to bear arms still is intact. You can't buy a cruise missile either. What's the big deal? You can still have a lot of different kinds of guns.
Banning any gun is an infringement on my rights.
Incorrect.
As Justice Scalia correctly observed in Heller:
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 Courts 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. Millers 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. 5456.
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. HELLER
Consequently, jurisdictions are at liberty to prohibit the possession of firearms determined to be dangerous and unusual, and such prohibitions do not manifest an infringement on the rights enshrined in the Second Amendment where the courts find those prohibitions warranted based on the evidence.
But yet you can't buy a brand new 2014 full auto gun. The country is a better place because of that.
Yes I can. And so can any law abiding citizen that wishes to submit an application the BATFE, go through a background check, submit fingerprints, pay a one time fee for a federal tax stamp. Basically what you need is a class 3 firearms permit, the requirements and cost may vary from state to state.
No you can't. You can't buy one made after 1986.
Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.
Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms? Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?
Sure it did, as long as it falls under the definition of arms.
Your second point has already been addressed. Please pay better attention.
And many arms are banned.
Yes I can. And so can any law abiding citizen that wishes to submit an application the BATFE, go through a background check, submit fingerprints, pay a one time fee for a federal tax stamp. Basically what you need is a class 3 firearms permit, the requirements and cost may vary from state to state.
No you can't. You can't buy one made after 1986.
Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Want to bet?
The Hughes Amendment:
BATF interpreted the amendment as a prohibition on the civilian possession of any fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986.
After passage of the FOPA, a law-abiding Georgian named Farmer applied for the registration of a fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986, but his application was rejected by BATF.
Farmer contended that BATF's interpretation of the measure as a prohibition on possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986 was incorrect, since the law exempted fully-automatic firearms newly-manufactured under the authority of the United States, thus it would exempt firearms approved for registration by BATF.
The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia ruled in Farmer's favor. On appeal by the federal government, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision with respect to BATF's interpretation
Court decisions invalidating parts of the National Firearms Act:
Rock Island Armory was charged with manufacturing "machineguns" in 1987 and 1988 in violation of the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act. In U. S. v. Rock Island Armory, Inc. (773 F. Supp. 117, C.D. Ill. 1991), the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed those charges because the NFA sections upon which they were based were "without any constitutional basis." The judge noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that the NFA's registration requirement was constitutional only because it was enacted for the purpose of facilitating the collection of tax revenue. Thus, he concluded, because the Hughes Amendment had been interpreted as prohibiting the possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986, the NFA's registration requirement no longer served its tax collection purpose. The judge said that since "Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms," the constitutional basis for the NFA registration provision no longer existed. The government initiated an appeal of the decision, but later requested that the appeal be dismissed, thus the Rock Island decision stands. In U.S. v. Dalton (960 F.2d 121, 10th Cir. 1992), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit adopted the Rock Island precedent.
No you can't. You can't buy one made after 1986.
Firearm Owners Protection Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Want to bet?
The Hughes Amendment:
BATF interpreted the amendment as a prohibition on the civilian possession of any fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986.
After passage of the FOPA, a law-abiding Georgian named Farmer applied for the registration of a fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986, but his application was rejected by BATF.
Farmer contended that BATF's interpretation of the measure as a prohibition on possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986 was incorrect, since the law exempted fully-automatic firearms newly-manufactured under the authority of the United States, thus it would exempt firearms approved for registration by BATF.
The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia ruled in Farmer's favor. On appeal by the federal government, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision with respect to BATF's interpretation
Court decisions invalidating parts of the National Firearms Act:
Rock Island Armory was charged with manufacturing "machineguns" in 1987 and 1988 in violation of the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act. In U. S. v. Rock Island Armory, Inc. (773 F. Supp. 117, C.D. Ill. 1991), the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed those charges because the NFA sections upon which they were based were "without any constitutional basis." The judge noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that the NFA's registration requirement was constitutional only because it was enacted for the purpose of facilitating the collection of tax revenue. Thus, he concluded, because the Hughes Amendment had been interpreted as prohibiting the possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986, the NFA's registration requirement no longer served its tax collection purpose. The judge said that since "Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms," the constitutional basis for the NFA registration provision no longer existed. The government initiated an appeal of the decision, but later requested that the appeal be dismissed, thus the Rock Island decision stands. In U.S. v. Dalton (960 F.2d 121, 10th Cir. 1992), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit adopted the Rock Island precedent.
While that is a lot to read, you still can't buy one. Sorry.
You're right to bear arms would still be intact. It never mentions the right to bear any weapon you want.
Second point, then aren't mental cases and criminals being denied their right to bear arms? Why should ANYONE be denied the right to a weapon?
Sure it did, as long as it falls under the definition of arms.
Your second point has already been addressed. Please pay better attention.
And many arms are banned.
Want to bet?
The Hughes Amendment:
BATF interpreted the amendment as a prohibition on the civilian possession of any fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986.
After passage of the FOPA, a law-abiding Georgian named Farmer applied for the registration of a fully-automatic firearm manufactured after May 19, 1986, but his application was rejected by BATF.
Farmer contended that BATF's interpretation of the measure as a prohibition on possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986 was incorrect, since the law exempted fully-automatic firearms newly-manufactured under the authority of the United States, thus it would exempt firearms approved for registration by BATF.
The U.S. District Court of the Northern District of Georgia ruled in Farmer's favor. On appeal by the federal government, the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit reversed the decision with respect to BATF's interpretation
Court decisions invalidating parts of the National Firearms Act:
Rock Island Armory was charged with manufacturing "machineguns" in 1987 and 1988 in violation of the registration requirements of the National Firearms Act. In U. S. v. Rock Island Armory, Inc. (773 F. Supp. 117, C.D. Ill. 1991), the chief judge of the U.S. District Court for the Central District of Illinois dismissed those charges because the NFA sections upon which they were based were "without any constitutional basis." The judge noted that the Supreme Court had previously ruled that the NFA's registration requirement was constitutional only because it was enacted for the purpose of facilitating the collection of tax revenue. Thus, he concluded, because the Hughes Amendment had been interpreted as prohibiting the possession of fully-automatic firearms manufactured after May 19, 1986, the NFA's registration requirement no longer served its tax collection purpose. The judge said that since "Congress has no enumerated power to require registration of firearms," the constitutional basis for the NFA registration provision no longer existed. The government initiated an appeal of the decision, but later requested that the appeal be dismissed, thus the Rock Island decision stands. In U.S. v. Dalton (960 F.2d 121, 10th Cir. 1992), the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit adopted the Rock Island precedent.
While that is a lot to read, you still can't buy one. Sorry.
Sure you can, the only thing is that the receivers are to be pre-1986.
You can buy a brand new AR-15 swap out the receiver and you have a brand new full auto weapon.
