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.
An AR15 is not an unusual weapon“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”
Justice Scalia also wrote:
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZ4oTAvcDUAhUBzIMKHVVBAzoQFgg9MAQ&url=https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/&usg=AFQjCNGSFaggs-G15kcyTS8oO4Bcio9tiQ&sig2=_z6ec0jGImhSGUdZGmsLUw
Did not need pictures. Fallacy of false standard.
Funny I didn't see one persons picture on that map, she targeted districts, not people. More regressive lies.
.
You libs are proud of that aren't you? Why is that? One would think that rioting and looting and assaulting Trump voters would be enough, let alone gunning down that woman.And who represented that district?
Funny I didn't see one persons picture on that map, she targeted districts, not people. More regressive lies.
.
A person.
Gabby Giffords.
That district was shot up later.
Mission accomplished!
You libs are proud of that aren't you? Why is that? One would think that rioting and looting and assaulting Trump voters would be enough, let alone gunning down that woman.And who represented that district?
Funny I didn't see one persons picture on that map, she targeted districts, not people. More regressive lies.
.
A person.
Gabby Giffords.
That district was shot up later.
Mission accomplished!
When was Scalise specifically targeted, exactly?
Funny I didn't see one persons picture on that map, she targeted districts, not people. More regressive lies.
.
Less than I've had, for sure. But far more than the average citizen.Do you know what the difference between a Capitol policeman and the average citizen is?? That's kind of sad.I carry much of the time but not when visiting schools or government installations. I do carry a weapon to church. Pastor does, too.
Why would it be sad.......
Was it sad that the members of Congress didn't have guns yesterday? And the only thing that saved them was the Whip was able to attend practice? Do you realize that the Whip rarely makes those early morning practices, and that it was a miracle that he was there...with his armed security?
The policeman has had a lot of training with firearms.
Most likely considerably less that I've had.
.
“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”
Justice Scalia also wrote:
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZ4oTAvcDUAhUBzIMKHVVBAzoQFgg9MAQ&url=https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/&usg=AFQjCNGSFaggs-G15kcyTS8oO4Bcio9tiQ&sig2=_z6ec0jGImhSGUdZGmsLUw
Indeed! OBAMAZ CUMMIN FER YER GUNZ BUY MOAR! was probably the most successful marketing campaign by America's gun manufacturers and retailers ever.“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”
Justice Scalia also wrote:
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZ4oTAvcDUAhUBzIMKHVVBAzoQFgg9MAQ&url=https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/&usg=AFQjCNGSFaggs-G15kcyTS8oO4Bcio9tiQ&sig2=_z6ec0jGImhSGUdZGmsLUw
so?? Obastard was the top gun salesman for 8 fuckin' years
And who represented that district?
Funny I didn't see one persons picture on that map, she targeted districts, not people. More regressive lies.
.
A person.
Gabby Giffords.
That district was shot up later.
Mission accomplished!
Do you know what the difference between a Capitol policeman and the average citizen is?? That's kind of sad.I carry much of the time but not when visiting schools or government installations. I do carry a weapon to church. Pastor does, too.
Why would it be sad.......
Was it sad that the members of Congress didn't have guns yesterday? And the only thing that saved them was the Whip was able to attend practice? Do you realize that the Whip rarely makes those early morning practices, and that it was a miracle that he was there...with his armed security?
The policeman has had a lot of training with firearms.
Of the 34 thousand people who die by firearms each year, very very few die from an assault weapon.Sources told ABC News that the primary weapon used in shooting was an SKS 7.62 assault-style rifle. Authorities also recovered a Smith and Wesson 9 mm pistol, though it was not clear if it was used in the attack.An ar15 is a sporting rifle nothing more. Only fucking little snowflakes are scared of such a inadequate weapon for military muster...“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”
Justice Scalia also wrote:
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZ4oTAvcDUAhUBzIMKHVVBAzoQFgg9MAQ&url=https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/&usg=AFQjCNGSFaggs-G15kcyTS8oO4Bcio9tiQ&sig2=_z6ec0jGImhSGUdZGmsLUw
I don't know what an SKS 7.62 assault-style rifle is, but it was purchased legally.
Gun used in Scalise shooting was legally purchased assault rifle, sources say
Yesterday, someone said 2.5 million times.Americans use their guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop attacks like this
Yeah, you only have 700 firearm homicides each year in Texas, compared to 377 in Illinois (including Chicago).In Texas we have open carry now and things are just fine. No wild west shootouts are happening like the libtards and dummiecrats said would happen.
All by Muslims, of course.
Did not need pictures. Fallacy of false standard.
Funny I didn't see one persons picture on that map, she targeted districts, not people. More regressive lies.
.
You libs are proud of that aren't you? Why is that? One would think that rioting and looting and assaulting Trump voters would be enough, let alone gunning down that woman.And who represented that district?
Funny I didn't see one persons picture on that map, she targeted districts, not people. More regressive lies.
.
A person.
Gabby Giffords.
That district was shot up later.
Mission accomplished!
That only applies to the unorganized militia; our Second Amendment applies, literally, to well regulated militia.“We also recognize another important limitation on the right to keep and carry arms. ‘Miller’ said, as we have explained, that the sorts of weapons protected were those ‘in common use at the time.’ 307 U.S., at 179, 59 S.Ct. 816. We think that limitation is fairly supported by the historical tradition of prohibiting the carrying of ‘dangerous and unusual weapons.’”
Justice Scalia also wrote:
“It may be objected that if weapons that are most useful in military service — M-16 rifles and the like — may be banned, then the Second Amendment right is completely detached from the prefatory clause. But as we have said, the conception of the militia at the time of the Second Amendment’s ratification was the body of all citizens capable of military service, who would bring the sorts of lawful weapons that they possessed at home to militia duty. It may well be true today that a militia, to be as effective as militias in the 18th century, would require sophisticated arms that are highly unusual in society at large. Indeed, it may be true that no amount of small arms could be useful against modern-day bombers and tanks. But the fact that modern developments have limited the degree of fit between the prefatory clause and the protected right cannot change our interpretation of the right.”
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=5&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZ4oTAvcDUAhUBzIMKHVVBAzoQFgg9MAQ&url=https://takingnote.blogs.nytimes.com/2015/12/11/justice-scalias-gun-control-argument/&usg=AFQjCNGSFaggs-G15kcyTS8oO4Bcio9tiQ&sig2=_z6ec0jGImhSGUdZGmsLUw
Yesterday, someone said 2.5 million times.Americans use their guns 1,500,000 times a year to stop attacks like this
Both figures are bullshit.
How quickly you forget: Charleston church shootingOh, for Pete's sake, 2AGuy, pay attention. Jake needs to carry in church? You'd think church was for quiet thoughtful peaceful meditation, not looking over your shoulder and keeping your handgun ready to fire. That's what we were discussing, not a public park.? That's kind of sad.I carry much of the time but not when visiting schools or government installations. I do carry a weapon to church. Pastor does, too.
Why would it be sad.......
Was it sad that the members of Congress didn't have guns yesterday? And the only thing that saved them was the Whip was able to attend practice? Do you realize that the Whip rarely makes those early morning practices, and that it was a miracle that he was there...with his armed security?
You never know when some far right wing nutjob will show up.
Dumbass, Obama tried to go through the back door. He went after the ammo.
