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.
Not sure if it took all 5 shots to defend life but finally after decades a citizen fired 5 rounds into a robber. So 1 time someone might have needed 5 rounds but you claim banning 11 or more is bad & everyone should have unlimited so when someone has a bad day they can fire 1,500+ rounds into a crowd wounding or killing 600 before committing suicide long before police attempted anything.You Lie!!! I did not say police or military shootouts! I am talking about US citizen defending life!It's never taken more than 3 shots to stop attackers and those 3 shots stopped a violent group of 7 attackers.
That's NOT true at all. Many criminals have been shot many more than three times and still posed a threat to their victim, or police. Many survive multiple gunshot wounds, but even if they do eventually die, the can still hurt or kill you after multiple hits.
What about multiple attackers where several men attempt a car jacking, or home invasion? It happens.
You are wrong....
Georgia mom shoots home intruder in the face five times with a .38-caliber revolver - NY Daily News
The woman who lived in the house didn’t answer, and when the man began furiously pressing the doorbell, she called her husband, who called 911. The woman, whose name authorities are withholding, then got a .38-caliber revolver she kept in the house and gathered her young twins and hid with them in a closet inside the house, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.
Seconds later, the man at the door, later identified by police as Paul Ali Slater, broke into the house with a crowbar and began ransacking the house.
Slater soon came upon the upstairs closet where the three were hiding and opened the doors, only to immediately be shot five times in the face and neck by the woman.
“He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
“The guy’s face down, crying,” Chapman added. “The woman told him to stay down or she’d shoot again.”
The wounded intruder stumbled out of the house, attempting to flee in his car, but crashed into a nearby wooded area and collapsed in a neighbor’s driveway as he attempted to exit the car.
Even Heller did not dare to tell a State they were not allowed to legislate the lethality of weapons allowed in private handsWrong againJust another thing to trip them up on
Routine traffic stop. What are these high capacity magazines in your trunk?
On parole....back to jail
Moron, you don't have to be on parole now, you just have to be a law abiding gun owner. 10s of thousands of normal, law abiding gun owners are now felons.....for nothing more than owning a legal magazine, something they would never use for a crime.....
But fascists like you love laws like this...
If you have illegal weapons or accessories you are not a law abiding gun owner
Wrong....the law is unConstitutional, therefore the law is illegal.
Afraid not
The court upheld the law
If you choose to break it, you are a criminal
Afraid not, D.C. v Heller is superior to that court....the lower court broke the law.
Not sure if it took all 5 shots to defend life but finally after decades a citizen fired 5 rounds into a robber. So 1 time someone might have needed 5 rounds but you claim banning 11 or more is bad & everyone should have unlimited so when someone has a bad day they can fire 1,500+ rounds into a crowd wounding or killing 600 before committing suicide long before police attempted anything.You Lie!!! I did not say police or military shootouts! I am talking about US citizen defending life!It's never taken more than 3 shots to stop attackers and those 3 shots stopped a violent group of 7 attackers.
That's NOT true at all. Many criminals have been shot many more than three times and still posed a threat to their victim, or police. Many survive multiple gunshot wounds, but even if they do eventually die, the can still hurt or kill you after multiple hits.
What about multiple attackers where several men attempt a car jacking, or home invasion? It happens.
You are wrong....
Georgia mom shoots home intruder in the face five times with a .38-caliber revolver - NY Daily News
The woman who lived in the house didn’t answer, and when the man began furiously pressing the doorbell, she called her husband, who called 911. The woman, whose name authorities are withholding, then got a .38-caliber revolver she kept in the house and gathered her young twins and hid with them in a closet inside the house, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.
Seconds later, the man at the door, later identified by police as Paul Ali Slater, broke into the house with a crowbar and began ransacking the house.
Slater soon came upon the upstairs closet where the three were hiding and opened the doors, only to immediately be shot five times in the face and neck by the woman.
“He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
“The guy’s face down, crying,” Chapman added. “The woman told him to stay down or she’d shoot again.”
The wounded intruder stumbled out of the house, attempting to flee in his car, but crashed into a nearby wooded area and collapsed in a neighbor’s driveway as he attempted to exit the car.
Even Heller did not dare to tell a State they were not allowed to legislate the lethality of weapons allowed in private handsWrong againMoron, you don't have to be on parole now, you just have to be a law abiding gun owner. 10s of thousands of normal, law abiding gun owners are now felons.....for nothing more than owning a legal magazine, something they would never use for a crime.....
But fascists like you love laws like this...
If you have illegal weapons or accessories you are not a law abiding gun owner
Wrong....the law is unConstitutional, therefore the law is illegal.
Afraid not
The court upheld the law
If you choose to break it, you are a criminal
Afraid not, D.C. v Heller is superior to that court....the lower court broke the law.
Even Heller did not dare to tell a State they were not allowed to legislate the lethality of weapons allowed in private handsWrong againMoron, you don't have to be on parole now, you just have to be a law abiding gun owner. 10s of thousands of normal, law abiding gun owners are now felons.....for nothing more than owning a legal magazine, something they would never use for a crime.....
But fascists like you love laws like this...
If you have illegal weapons or accessories you are not a law abiding gun owner
Wrong....the law is unConstitutional, therefore the law is illegal.
Afraid not
The court upheld the law
If you choose to break it, you are a criminal
Afraid not, D.C. v Heller is superior to that court....the lower court broke the law.
Your Guy Trump Banned Bump Stocks, but not quick change magazines or those over 10 rounds, so children in schools & people at concerts are no safer.Not sure if it took all 5 shots to defend life but finally after decades a citizen fired 5 rounds into a robber. So 1 time someone might have needed 5 rounds but you claim banning 11 or more is bad & everyone should have unlimited so when someone has a bad day they can fire 1,500+ rounds into a crowd wounding or killing 600 before committing suicide long before police attempted anything.You Lie!!! I did not say police or military shootouts! I am talking about US citizen defending life!It's never taken more than 3 shots to stop attackers and those 3 shots stopped a violent group of 7 attackers.
That's NOT true at all. Many criminals have been shot many more than three times and still posed a threat to their victim, or police. Many survive multiple gunshot wounds, but even if they do eventually die, the can still hurt or kill you after multiple hits.
What about multiple attackers where several men attempt a car jacking, or home invasion? It happens.
You are wrong....
Georgia mom shoots home intruder in the face five times with a .38-caliber revolver - NY Daily News
The woman who lived in the house didn’t answer, and when the man began furiously pressing the doorbell, she called her husband, who called 911. The woman, whose name authorities are withholding, then got a .38-caliber revolver she kept in the house and gathered her young twins and hid with them in a closet inside the house, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported.
Seconds later, the man at the door, later identified by police as Paul Ali Slater, broke into the house with a crowbar and began ransacking the house.
Slater soon came upon the upstairs closet where the three were hiding and opened the doors, only to immediately be shot five times in the face and neck by the woman.
“He opens the closet door and finds himself staring down the barrel of a .38 revolver,” Walton County Sheriff Joe Chapman told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.
“The guy’s face down, crying,” Chapman added. “The woman told him to stay down or she’d shoot again.”
The wounded intruder stumbled out of the house, attempting to flee in his car, but crashed into a nearby wooded area and collapsed in a neighbor’s driveway as he attempted to exit the car.
Sorry, you don't know what you are talking about......most self defense shootings? They don't count the bullets and report them in the press.....so you can't claim anything.....
Next, the worst mass killing took place in France, where a muslim terrorist used a rental truck to murder 86 people and injure 435..... Las Vegas, the shooter fired from a concealed and fortified position, into a tightly packed crowed of over 22,000 people....and killed 58......
So, according to your logic, we need to ban rental Trucks, not guns.
Even Heller did not dare to tell a State they were not allowed to legislate the lethality of weapons allowed in private handsWrong again
If you have illegal weapons or accessories you are not a law abiding gun owner
Wrong....the law is unConstitutional, therefore the law is illegal.
Afraid not
The court upheld the law
If you choose to break it, you are a criminal
Afraid not, D.C. v Heller is superior to that court....the lower court broke the law.
Yeah...it did.....
the Second Amendment extends, prima facie, to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Again you avoid the elephant in the roomEven Heller did not dare to tell a State they were not allowed to legislate the lethality of weapons allowed in private handsWrong again
If you have illegal weapons or accessories you are not a law abiding gun owner
Wrong....the law is unConstitutional, therefore the law is illegal.
Afraid not
The court upheld the law
If you choose to break it, you are a criminal
Afraid not, D.C. v Heller is superior to that court....the lower court broke the law.
And then you have the follow up to Heller in Caetano v Massachusetts where the Supreme Court dismantled the "dangerous" argument...
https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/15pdf/14-10078_aplc.pdf
First, the relative dangerousness of a weapon is irrelevant when the weapon belongs to a class of arms commonly used for lawful purposes. See Heller, supra, at 627 (contrasting “‘dangerous and unusual weapons’” that may be banned with protected “weapons . . . ‘in common use at the time’”).
Second, even in cases where dangerousness might be relevant, the Supreme Judicial Court’s test sweeps far too broadly.
Heller defined the “Arms” covered by the Second Amendment to include “‘any thing that a man wears for his defence, or takes into his hands, or useth in wrath to cast at or strike another.’” 554 U. S., at 581.
Afraid not
The court upheld the law
If you choose to break it, you are a criminal
Again you avoid the elephant in the room
The state can regulate the lethality of weapons you can buy
Wow, you took that right to 11, didn't you?How do you get criminals to not have fully automatic weapons? We put them behind the Class III barrier in 1934 and, lo and behold, there haven't been many around for quite some time. By your argument, criminals should have been ignoring that law for 84 years by now.
If your solution is so "brilliant"......why did the truly brilliant men who founded this nation add the 2nd ? You have no idea do you?
I haven't seen many people walking around with nuclear warheads either. But We aren't demanding access to such things.
We are demanding our Constitutional Right to bear EFFECTIVE arms against enemies foreign AND domestic.
By your argument, we'd all be better off as a nation with zero arms in the hands of the population
The collective Left in Venezuela NOW DEEPLY REGRETS what it did to destroy their own nation. Too late.
Venezuelans regret gun ban, 'a declaration of war against an unarmed population'
Imbeciles and the indoctrinated NEVER learn
If they arent the same there was no logical equivalence. Dont you know what equivalence means?Of course you did. You dont have to lie about it.Says the guy that claims getting pregnant is like going to war.you are the one ducking and weaving like an addled boxer.
You back up your generalizations and progspeak talking points with gibberish.
I never claimed that.
I guess logical analogies are beyond your mental ability.
I made a comparison of logical equivalence based on your viewpoint. I never claimed they were the same thing.
Try harder to understand.
So the 2nd tells us that the rights of a mass murderer should not be infringed. Got it.Again you avoid the elephant in the room
The state can regulate the lethality of weapons you can buy
What part of "Shall NOT INFRINGE" can't you understand?
QUOTE IT.....straight from the Constitution.....or stfu
So the 2nd tells us that the rights of a mass murderer should not be infringed. Got it.
What does that have to do with carrying illegal weapons bro?Afraid not
The court upheld the law
If you choose to break it, you are a criminal
as a black man, you should know that the SUPREME COURT once ruled that African Americans WERE NOT "PERSONS".
So much for your sucking up to the "infallible courts"
Same applies to speed limitsSo the 2nd tells us that the rights of a mass murderer should not be infringed. Got it.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Mass murder, and any murder IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. Why punish the law abiding? Punish the murderer!!!
Works until you get caught with em loaded with 30 rounds of AR15 ammunition
How are you being punished?So the 2nd tells us that the rights of a mass murderer should not be infringed. Got it.
NO IT DOESN'T.
Mass murder, and any murder IS ALREADY ILLEGAL. Why punish the law abiding? Punish the murderer!!!
How are you being punished?
