Leftists Now Clamoring To Get Guns And Finding Out It's Not That Easy

[Leo123]

It already has been infringed, you idiot. Try to buy a machine gun, Try to buy a tank. Try to buy a grenade. I could go on and on about the arms you cannot buy.

Dumb ass automatic weapons manufactured before 1986 are legal to own

You are incorrect, you fricking idiot.
Here Are The Actual Federal Laws Regulating Machine Guns In The U.S. - The Federalist
What about tanks, surface to air missles, weaponized drones, nuclear bombs? They are all arms you absolute dumbshit who does not know what they are talking about.

Red herring bullshit
Lookup class 3 weapons you dumb fuck

Have you been shot in the head causing brain damage.
I am pointing out there are many arms US citizens cannot buy. The list is long. Much longer than the list of arms they can buy.
I have referenced a few arms you cannot buy, tanks, surface to air missiles, weaponized drones.
A class 3 weapon or license has nothing to do with the arms I have referenced. You will not be buying a tank in reference to a class 3 weapon.
Dumb is Dumb is Dumb.

A class 3 weapon you dumb fuck is an automatic firearm

Yes and one CAN own one with the correct permits and lots of $$$$$$. right?

 

[ElmerMudd]

One huge problem. Every new Justice goes through a mini bootcamp before they make their first ruling. They become Constitutionalists pretty fast. You want party rulings. Well, you aren't going to get it. The only time that may happen is when it's iffy at best on which way it can go and the Legislation hasn't done it's job. You are still waiting for the Supreme Court to rerule on Roe V Wade. Newsflash, cupcake: even the most right wingers on the supreme court have already stated that it's the law and they aren't go to overrule the previous ruling.

As for 2nd Amendment, the ONLY time the modern Supreme Court has touched the 2nd Amendment was Heller V D.C. only because there is no state Federal court to rule on it. And even then, they didn't give you what you keep crying about. Heller V is the gold standard now for Gun Regulations and it's the basis for the other rulings by the courts that allows the States, Counties and Cities to create various gun regulations. The reason for that is, the Supreme Court can only rule on Federal Matters when the lower courts are ruling on State Matters. The 2nd Amendment applies to the Feds except for the ruling that came out of Heller V. Don't look for the Supreme Court to overturn the State or District Federal Courts because that's state not federal.

I'll say it again, if you don't like the state you are living in and it's laws, move to one that you do like.

You are confused about the Bill of Rights, aren't you? You think the government can simply pass laws to circumvent the right, don't you?

There are indications that this pending NY case is going to destroy the filthy state and local gun laws.

One of the problems that we have in this country is that the stupid government does not apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do to other Constitutional rights.

There are indications that the Conservatives on the Supreme chose to take the case because they wanted to establish the concept of Strict Scrutiny for the 2nd. If they do that then it will negate not only oppressive Federal anti gun laws but also the States and Locals. It will be a great restoration of Liberty in this country.

If we don't reverse the government passing laws that negate the Bill of Rights then the BORs is not worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

The Bill of Rights suppose to be protection against government oppression. If we allow the filthy government to simply pass laws that circumvent the right then we have no rights, do we?

If the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and then the government passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are acting illegally, aren't they?

You are confused about the Bill of Right, aren't you?

Arms, not guns. Your right to own many arms have already been taken away. In fact the right to own the majority of arms available to the government are not available to individuals.

damn the stupidity with this one fudd arms were weapons of war

At the time of the bill of rights all arms were weapons of war. Part of the logic behind the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry and the states the ability to defend themself from an oppressive, rogue federal government. The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.

Do you are completely ignorant of the facts Have you ever heard of a country called Vietnam? Afghanistan? And weapons of war are protected by the second amendment.

What are you saying? You are agreeing US citizens should be able to buy weapons of war that are much more deadly than any gun?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.

Obligatory:

View attachment 314160

Here's a great link for stats
https://www.atf.gov/file/130436/download

 

[bigrebnc1775]

You are confused about the Bill of Rights, aren't you? You think the government can simply pass laws to circumvent the right, don't you?

There are indications that this pending NY case is going to destroy the filthy state and local gun laws.

One of the problems that we have in this country is that the stupid government does not apply the same strict scrutiny to the Constitutional right to keep and bear arms as they do to other Constitutional rights.

There are indications that the Conservatives on the Supreme chose to take the case because they wanted to establish the concept of Strict Scrutiny for the 2nd. If they do that then it will negate not only oppressive Federal anti gun laws but also the States and Locals. It will be a great restoration of Liberty in this country.

If we don't reverse the government passing laws that negate the Bill of Rights then the BORs is not worth the parchment it is written on, is it?

The Bill of Rights suppose to be protection against government oppression. If we allow the filthy government to simply pass laws that circumvent the right then we have no rights, do we?

If the Bill of Rights says very clearly that the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed and then the government passes laws to infringe upon that right then they are acting illegally, aren't they?

You are confused about the Bill of Right, aren't you?

Arms, not guns. Your right to own many arms have already been taken away. In fact the right to own the majority of arms available to the government are not available to individuals.

damn the stupidity with this one fudd arms were weapons of war

At the time of the bill of rights all arms were weapons of war. Part of the logic behind the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry and the states the ability to defend themself from an oppressive, rogue federal government. The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.

Do you are completely ignorant of the facts Have you ever heard of a country called Vietnam? Afghanistan? And weapons of war are protected by the second amendment.

What are you saying? You are agreeing US citizens should be able to buy weapons of war that are much more deadly than any gun?

A law-abiding citizen should own the exact same conventional weapons the government owns
DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH LAW ABIDING CITIZENS?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Dumb ass automatic weapons manufactured before 1986 are legal to own

You are incorrect, you fricking idiot.
Here Are The Actual Federal Laws Regulating Machine Guns In The U.S. - The Federalist
What about tanks, surface to air missles, weaponized drones, nuclear bombs? They are all arms you absolute dumbshit who does not know what they are talking about.

Red herring bullshit
Lookup class 3 weapons you dumb fuck

Have you been shot in the head causing brain damage.
I am pointing out there are many arms US citizens cannot buy. The list is long. Much longer than the list of arms they can buy.
I have referenced a few arms you cannot buy, tanks, surface to air missiles, weaponized drones.
A class 3 weapon or license has nothing to do with the arms I have referenced. You will not be buying a tank in reference to a class 3 weapon.
Dumb is Dumb is Dumb.

A class 3 weapon you dumb fuck is an automatic firearm

Yes and one CAN own one with the correct permits and lots of $$$$$$. right?

AND YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? WHY?

 

[Leo123]

You are incorrect, you fricking idiot.
Here Are The Actual Federal Laws Regulating Machine Guns In The U.S. - The Federalist
What about tanks, surface to air missles, weaponized drones, nuclear bombs? They are all arms you absolute dumbshit who does not know what they are talking about.

Red herring bullshit
Lookup class 3 weapons you dumb fuck

Have you been shot in the head causing brain damage.
I am pointing out there are many arms US citizens cannot buy. The list is long. Much longer than the list of arms they can buy.
I have referenced a few arms you cannot buy, tanks, surface to air missiles, weaponized drones.
A class 3 weapon or license has nothing to do with the arms I have referenced. You will not be buying a tank in reference to a class 3 weapon.
Dumb is Dumb is Dumb.

A class 3 weapon you dumb fuck is an automatic firearm

Yes and one CAN own one with the correct permits and lots of $$$$$$. right?

AND YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? WHY?

NO!! No problem at all. I think you misunderstood. I would LOVE to own one, I support the 2nd amendment and own several guns. I just get mad at stupid gun grabbers who keep floating the lie that fully auto weapons are positively illegal....They are not.

 

[rightwinger]

What size gun does it take to shoot a virus?

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Arms, not guns. Your right to own many arms have already been taken away. In fact the right to own the majority of arms available to the government are not available to individuals.

damn the stupidity with this one fudd arms were weapons of war

At the time of the bill of rights all arms were weapons of war. Part of the logic behind the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry and the states the ability to defend themself from an oppressive, rogue federal government. The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.

Do you are completely ignorant of the facts Have you ever heard of a country called Vietnam? Afghanistan? And weapons of war are protected by the second amendment.

What are you saying? You are agreeing US citizens should be able to buy weapons of war that are much more deadly than any gun?

A law-abiding citizen should own the exact same conventional weapons the government owns
DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH LAW ABIDING CITIZENS?

The 2nd doesn't say Conventional Arms. It's says Arms. Therefore, you are advocating that we all should be able to obtain nuclear weapons.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Red herring bullshit
Lookup class 3 weapons you dumb fuck

Have you been shot in the head causing brain damage.
I am pointing out there are many arms US citizens cannot buy. The list is long. Much longer than the list of arms they can buy.
I have referenced a few arms you cannot buy, tanks, surface to air missiles, weaponized drones.
A class 3 weapon or license has nothing to do with the arms I have referenced. You will not be buying a tank in reference to a class 3 weapon.
Dumb is Dumb is Dumb.

A class 3 weapon you dumb fuck is an automatic firearm

Yes and one CAN own one with the correct permits and lots of $$$$$$. right?

AND YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? WHY?

NO!! No problem at all. I think you misunderstood. I would LOVE to own one, I support the 2nd amendment and own several guns. I just get mad at stupid gun grabbers who keep floating the lie that fully auto weapons are positively illegal....They are not.

The book unintentional consequences explain a lot about U.S. vs Miller and how we got to this point in time.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

damn the stupidity with this one fudd arms were weapons of war

At the time of the bill of rights all arms were weapons of war. Part of the logic behind the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry and the states the ability to defend themself from an oppressive, rogue federal government. The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.

Do you are completely ignorant of the facts Have you ever heard of a country called Vietnam? Afghanistan? And weapons of war are protected by the second amendment.

What are you saying? You are agreeing US citizens should be able to buy weapons of war that are much more deadly than any gun?

A law-abiding citizen should own the exact same conventional weapons the government owns
DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH LAW ABIDING CITIZENS?

The 2nd doesn't say Conventional Arms. It's says Arms. Therefore, you are advocating that we all should be able to obtain nuclear weapons.

Arms are weapons that would maintain a war readiness capability care to explain why the government needs a second amendment right?

 

[bigrebnc1775]

What size gun does it take to shoot a virus?

are you suggesting the government released the virus as a weapon of war?

 

[ElmerMudd]

What size gun does it take to shoot a virus?

You need to be a dam good shot
Plus you have to shoot them as they are entering the nose to be most effective.
A very delicate shot.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

At the time of the bill of rights all arms were weapons of war. Part of the logic behind the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry and the states the ability to defend themself from an oppressive, rogue federal government. The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.

Do you are completely ignorant of the facts Have you ever heard of a country called Vietnam? Afghanistan? And weapons of war are protected by the second amendment.

What are you saying? You are agreeing US citizens should be able to buy weapons of war that are much more deadly than any gun?

A law-abiding citizen should own the exact same conventional weapons the government owns
DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH LAW ABIDING CITIZENS?

The 2nd doesn't say Conventional Arms. It's says Arms. Therefore, you are advocating that we all should be able to obtain nuclear weapons.

Arms are weapons that would maintain a war readiness capability care to explain why the government needs a second amendment right?

It needed it before 1898. After that, things went haywire for the number and power of the weapons and the size of the Federal Troop levels. In fact, it actually became necessary to have some form of gun regulations due to the abundance of the Colt, Remington and others 6 shot revolvers that were introduced in the 1860s. Public safety became an issue fast. For instance, in Dallas, Tx, there were more gun regulations in 1871 that there is today done by the State. In 1871, the State of Tx didn't have any gun regs at all but Dallas Tx required all persons entering into the city limits to surrender their side arms until they exit the city limits. And it was aggressively enforced. BTW, if you did shoot someone with a hideout gun, even if it was in self defense, you were tried and convicted of murder.

In 1871, in the Eastern Cities, it wasn't illegal to open carry a sidearm but it was heavily frowned upon.

Firearm Regulation is as old as firearms themselves. And what is sought after is the happy medium. Too little and you end up with too many OK Corrals. Too much and you end up with too many OK Corrals.

The 2nd A doesn't say "Conventional Arms", it says "Arms". That means tanks, gas, bio, chemical, nuclear, automatic weapons, artillery, and more. They are all Arms. If you are saying that we should limit Nuclear, Bio, Chemical and such then you are demanding Arms Regulation.

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Have you been shot in the head causing brain damage.
I am pointing out there are many arms US citizens cannot buy. The list is long. Much longer than the list of arms they can buy.
I have referenced a few arms you cannot buy, tanks, surface to air missiles, weaponized drones.
A class 3 weapon or license has nothing to do with the arms I have referenced. You will not be buying a tank in reference to a class 3 weapon.
Dumb is Dumb is Dumb.

A class 3 weapon you dumb fuck is an automatic firearm

Yes and one CAN own one with the correct permits and lots of $$$$$$. right?

AND YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? WHY?

NO!! No problem at all. I think you misunderstood. I would LOVE to own one, I support the 2nd amendment and own several guns. I just get mad at stupid gun grabbers who keep floating the lie that fully auto weapons are positively illegal....They are not.

The book unintentional consequences explain a lot about U.S. vs Miller and how we got to this point in time.

Miller V has long since been retracted. Since Heller V, Miller V has little meaning.

 

[bigrebnc1775]

At the time of the bill of rights all arms were weapons of war. Part of the logic behind the 2nd amendment was to give the citizenry and the states the ability to defend themself from an oppressive, rogue federal government. The same reason some idiots think owning guns, today, will allow them to fight off the government. Good luck with the arms the Federal Government has.

Do you are completely ignorant of the facts Have you ever heard of a country called Vietnam? Afghanistan? And weapons of war are protected by the second amendment.

What are you saying? You are agreeing US citizens should be able to buy weapons of war that are much more deadly than any gun?

A law-abiding citizen should own the exact same conventional weapons the government owns
DO YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH LAW ABIDING CITIZENS?

The 2nd doesn't say Conventional Arms. It's says Arms. Therefore, you are advocating that we all should be able to obtain nuclear weapons.

Arms are weapons that would maintain a war readiness capability care to explain why the government needs a second amendment right?

It needed it before 1898. After that, things went haywire for the number and power of the weapons and the size of the Federal Troop levels. In fact, it actually became necessary to have some form of gun regulations due to the abundance of the Colt, Remington and others 6 shot revolvers that were introduced in the 1860s. Public safety became an issue fast. For instance, in Dallas, Tx, there were more gun regulations in 1871 that there is today done by the State. In 1871, the State of Tx didn't have any gun regs at all but Dallas Tx required all persons entering into the city limits to surrender their side arms until they exit the city limits. And it was aggressively enforced. BTW, if you did shoot someone with a hideout gun, even if it was in self defense, you were tried and convicted of murder.

In 1871, in the Eastern Cities, it wasn't illegal to open carry a sidearm but it was heavily frowned upon.

Firearm Regulation is as old as firearms themselves. And what is sought after is the happy medium. Too little and you end up with too many OK Corrals. Too much and you end up with too many OK Corrals.

The 2nd A doesn't say "Conventional Arms", it says "Arms". That means tanks, gas, bio, chemical, nuclear, automatic weapons, artillery, and more. They are all Arms. If you are saying that we should limit Nuclear, Bio, Chemical and such then you are demanding Arms Regulation.

Dumbass so you can predict the future? Need is not connected with rights

 

[bigrebnc1775]

Have you been shot in the head causing brain damage.
I am pointing out there are many arms US citizens cannot buy. The list is long. Much longer than the list of arms they can buy.
I have referenced a few arms you cannot buy, tanks, surface to air missiles, weaponized drones.
A class 3 weapon or license has nothing to do with the arms I have referenced. You will not be buying a tank in reference to a class 3 weapon.
Dumb is Dumb is Dumb.

A class 3 weapon you dumb fuck is an automatic firearm

Yes and one CAN own one with the correct permits and lots of $$$$$$. right?

AND YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? WHY?

NO!! No problem at all. I think you misunderstood. I would LOVE to own one, I support the 2nd amendment and own several guns. I just get mad at stupid gun grabbers who keep floating the lie that fully auto weapons are positively illegal....They are not.

The book unintentional consequences explain a lot about U.S. vs Miller and how we got to this point in time.

Miller V has long since been retracted. Since Heller V, Miller V has little meaning.

Glad you like Miller since it specifically protects weapons of war in the hands of citizens.

 

[2aguy]

Have you been shot in the head causing brain damage.
I am pointing out there are many arms US citizens cannot buy. The list is long. Much longer than the list of arms they can buy.
I have referenced a few arms you cannot buy, tanks, surface to air missiles, weaponized drones.
A class 3 weapon or license has nothing to do with the arms I have referenced. You will not be buying a tank in reference to a class 3 weapon.
Dumb is Dumb is Dumb.

A class 3 weapon you dumb fuck is an automatic firearm

Yes and one CAN own one with the correct permits and lots of $$$$$$. right?

AND YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? WHY?

NO!! No problem at all. I think you misunderstood. I would LOVE to own one, I support the 2nd amendment and own several guns. I just get mad at stupid gun grabbers who keep floating the lie that fully auto weapons are positively illegal....They are not.

The book unintentional consequences explain a lot about U.S. vs Miller and how we got to this point in time.

Miller V has long since been retracted. Since Heller V, Miller V has little meaning.

Moron.....Heller cites Miller......as does Caetano v Massachusetts.......you don't know what you are talking about.....

 

[Daryl Hunt]

Have you been shot in the head causing brain damage.
I am pointing out there are many arms US citizens cannot buy. The list is long. Much longer than the list of arms they can buy.
I have referenced a few arms you cannot buy, tanks, surface to air missiles, weaponized drones.
A class 3 weapon or license has nothing to do with the arms I have referenced. You will not be buying a tank in reference to a class 3 weapon.
Dumb is Dumb is Dumb.

A class 3 weapon you dumb fuck is an automatic firearm

Yes and one CAN own one with the correct permits and lots of $$$$$$. right?

AND YOU HAVE A PROBLEM WITH THAT? WHY?

NO!! No problem at all. I think you misunderstood. I would LOVE to own one, I support the 2nd amendment and own several guns. I just get mad at stupid gun grabbers who keep floating the lie that fully auto weapons are positively illegal....They are not.

The book unintentional consequences explain a lot about U.S. vs Miller and how we got to this point in time.

Miller V has long since been retracted. Since Heller V, Miller V has little meaning.

Glad you like Miller since it specifically protects weapons of war in the hands of citizens.

As long as you completely ignore all the ones since it. Miller V was more to put another "Negro" into prison more than it was about the weapon. Yes, there has been many ruling since that some have claimed that the 2A has been watered down. And some have claimed that the importance of the "Militia" has been done the same. But there was a time when State Militias were the back bone of the defense of the Nation going all the way back to the Spanish American War. Many unites in the Civil War from both sides were from State Militias. But in 1898, for the Spanish American War, it was discovered that the US could no longer depend on the State Militias as the majority of the manpower and equipment resources. And as late as the 1970s, it was noted that the States differed greatly on quality from one National Group to another. Organized Militias were found to not be enough to protect the US anymore. And when they were Nationalized at times, the cost was prohibitive for any one state to train, equip and maintain. So the first part of the National Guard Act was passed in 1898 giving the Feds the ability to nationalize some of the State Guards or "State Militias". In 1916, the National Guard Act was passed by Congress and signed into law in 1917 in preparation for WWI giving the rules for Federal Nationalization of the States Militias or Guards. Also, in 1898, the strength of the US Military was removed. Are you aware that the number was kept for the Army to 75,000 from day one until it was changed? And do you know why? But that's a different discussion.

Up until the latter years of the Civil War, communities (civilians) could be armed as well as any Federal Military Unit on the Earth. This is what gave the Confederates a huge leg up. When the war first started, the Confederates actually had an advantage in manpower and equipment. But that changed when the North started to mobilize using it's State Guards or Militias and pooling it''s resources. Let's face it, the North had more money, more manufacturing, and more people. The 2nd A was in full force.

But as usual, War has a tendency to expand weapons research and some new weapons came out that weren't widely used as of yet. The Gatlin Gun and the Artillery using breech loading shells that could be reloaded. These had little affect on the Civil War outcome since they were just too late. But it was the start of a "Revolution" in arms. By 1914, 50 years later, the Machine Guns were used. They huge Artillery that could shoot for miles were used. And even the Tank was introduced into battle. And if you didn't have those things, your Nation was in jeopardy. And the cost was staggering. The States and Individuals could no longer afford them. It took nations. Hence the 1916/17 Nation Guard Act.

What comes out of all this is, the 2A limits the Federal Government from taking your "Guns" but that's about it as long as those guns are within reason. Miller was about the last remnant of the original idea for the 2A. Today, your guns are protected against the unreasonable. You are protected as long as you stay within reason. If you stray outside of "Reason" then the State has the right and the obligation to bring it back to the reasonable through due process.

 

[M14 Shooter]

So but the assault weapon ban of the 90'sc reduced mass shootings.

This is either a lie, or a statement of abject ignorance.
You choose.

I am 100% correct.
The Assault Weapon Ban Saved Lives | Stanford Law School

The fact your "proof" is a post hoc fallacy aside...

The 1994 AWB did nothing to reduce access to existing, or new, 'assault weapons', and thus could not have any effect.

 

[M14 Shooter]

They market gun ownership for the gun & ammo manufacturing. They dupe people like you & you make stupid posts. They have you advocating for easy access to powerful weapons to be used in mass killings.

All of this is a lie.
Why do you need to lie to make your point?