Poll: 2/3 of Americans Would Defy Federal Gun Ban

[Cowman]

Surface to air missles are explosives.

No right to bear explosives.

It's a right to bear arms, not a right to bear guns. Surface to air missiles is an implement of war, making it classified as arms. So many things involving explosives are also classified as arms.

See, people like you gave up those rights long ago! There is a precedent. And you seem to be fine with it.

You can't bear explosives.

You can't bear a surface to air missile?

What are you, a scrawny weakling?

 

[OODA_Loop]

A gun ban was filed in the House this week.

Democrats reintroduce assault weapons ban » Latest News » Corsicana Daily Sun, Corsicana, Texas

 

[OODA_Loop]

It's a right to bear arms, not a right to bear guns. Surface to air missiles is an implement of war, making it classified as arms. So many things involving explosives are also classified as arms.

See, people like you gave up those rights long ago! There is a precedent. And you seem to be fine with it.

You can't bear explosives.

You can't bear a surface to air missile?

What are you, a scrawny weakling?

Can't bear it, nothwithstanding its an explosive and violates FAA laws, it is not in common use.

Thus controlled item.

 

[Darkwind]

Still being a fucking un-American moron Dubya?

 

[Cowman]

You can't bear explosives.

You can't bear a surface to air missile?

What are you, a scrawny weakling?

Can't bear it, nothwithstanding its an explosive and violates FAA laws, it is not in common use.

Thus controlled item.

See? You're demonstrating my point for me perfectly.

Doesn't matter if they're explosives. It's a fucking weapon. It's literally classified as an armament. The constitution doesn't say "guns". It says arms. And explosive weapons like cannons and shit were most DEFINITELY classified as arms when the constitution was written.

And see, the fact that it's a controlled item and in violating of a law, you're fine with. YOU SUPPORT IT.

Such a law against assault rifles would be no different. You're simply being restricted on what classes of arms you can wield, not arms entirely. And as you've demonstrated above, you're apparently fine with that. And people like you now will be fine assault rifles being a controlled item in the future.

 

[OODA_Loop]

You can't bear a surface to air missile?

What are you, a scrawny weakling?

Can't bear it, notwithstanding its an explosive and violates FAA laws, it is not in common use.

Thus controlled item.

See? You're demonstrating my point for me perfectly.

Doesn't matter if they're explosives. It's a fucking weapon. It's literally classified as an armament.

And see, the fact that it's a controlled item and in violating of a law, you're fine with. YOU SUPPORT IT.

Such a law against assault rifles would be no different. You're simply being restricted on what classes of arms you can wield, not arms entirely. And as you've demonstrated above, you're apparently fine with that. And people like you now will be fine assault rifles being a controlled item in the future.

"Assault weapons" are in common use. There is one in practically every police cruiser across the country, 1000's in lawful shooting sports every weekend, estimated 15 million in private hands and they sell them at WALMART.

Missiles ? Not so much.

 

[Cowman]

Can't bear it, notwithstanding its an explosive and violates FAA laws, it is not in common use.

Thus controlled item.

See? You're demonstrating my point for me perfectly.

Doesn't matter if they're explosives. It's a fucking weapon. It's literally classified as an armament.

And see, the fact that it's a controlled item and in violating of a law, you're fine with. YOU SUPPORT IT.

Such a law against assault rifles would be no different. You're simply being restricted on what classes of arms you can wield, not arms entirely. And as you've demonstrated above, you're apparently fine with that. And people like you now will be fine assault rifles being a controlled item in the future.

"Assault weapons" are in common use. There is one in practically every police cruiser across the country, 1000's in lawful shooting sports every weekend, estimated 15 million in private hands and they sell them at WALMART.

Missiles ? Not so much.

Wait I'm sorry, does the 2nd ammendment say "right to keep and bear arms which are in common use"?

How about fucking flintlock pistols?

Those in common use?

What about anti-tank rifles? Are those in common use? No... but you can own one.

 

[Dubya]

Surface to air missles are explosives.

No right to bear explosives.

It's a right to bear arms, not a right to bear guns. Surface to air missiles is an implement of war, making it classified as arms. So many things involving explosives are also classified as arms.

See, people like you gave up those rights long ago! There is a precedent. And you seem to be fine with it.

You can't bear explosives.

The 2nd says keep and bear arms.

 

[OODA_Loop]

It's a right to bear arms, not a right to bear guns. Surface to air missiles is an implement of war, making it classified as arms. So many things involving explosives are also classified as arms.

See, people like you gave up those rights long ago! There is a precedent. And you seem to be fine with it.

You can't bear explosives.

The 2nd says keep and bear arms.

SCOTUS has further affirmed what that means.

And its not: Explosives.

 

[OODA_Loop]

Wait I'm sorry, does the 2nd ammendment say "right to keep and bear arms which are in common use"?

If you don't know this you might not ought to be opining on settled Constitutional gun law.

 

[Dubya]

You can't bear explosives.

The 2nd says keep and bear arms.

SCOTUS has further affirmed what that means.

And its not: Explosives.

SCOTUS is talking about the legality of laws pertaining to what you can have. Any type of weapon is a type of arm.

 

[OODA_Loop]

SCOTUS is talking about the legality of laws pertaining to what you can have. Any type of weapon is a type of arm.

Yes. Yes.

 

[Cowman]

You can't bear explosives.

The 2nd says keep and bear arms.

SCOTUS has further affirmed what that means.

And its not: Explosives.

See, you're just FURTHERING my point like a retard.

Yes, the SCOTUS has done that. WHICH GOES TO SHOW THAT YOU AGREE WITH THE DECISIONS THAT THE SCOTUS MAKES.

And it the SCOTUS gets a case further discussing whether or not assault rifles should be classified as arms a citizen can keep, as per the constitution, and says no?

You'll be fine with it. Because I mean of course you're fine with the limiting of the definition of "arms" in other scenarios, why not this one? No complaints of "Judicial Activism" there!

The fact that the SCOTUS says they're not classified as arms in the scope of the constitution, doesn't mean they're not arms.



My point is what you're already demonstrating for me. The scope has been limited in the past, and you're fine with it... and if it gets limited again, people will be fine with that.

 

[OODA_Loop]

My point is what you're already demonstrating for me. The scope has been limited in the past, and you're fine with it... and if it gets limited again, people will be fine that.

Common use is the limiting Constitutionality test.

Surface to Air Missile = Not Common Use

AR-15 = Very much common use.

 

[Cowman]

My point is what you're already demonstrating for me. The scope has been limited in the past, and you're fine with it... and if it gets limited again, people will be fine that.

Common use is the limiting Constitutionality test.

Surface to Air Missile = Not Common Use

AR-15 = Very much common use.

Muskets aren't in common use, so are you telling me you cannot own a musket?

I mean fuck dude, muskets were in common use when the constitution was written, and you could own one then, but you can't own one now?

 

[OODA_Loop]

My point is what you're already demonstrating for me. The scope has been limited in the past, and you're fine with it... and if it gets limited again, people will be fine that.

Common use is the limiting Constitutionality test.

Surface to Air Missile = Not Common Use

AR-15 = Very much common use.

Muskets aren't in common use, so are you telling me you cannot own a musket?

I mean fuck dude, muskets were in common use when the constitution was written, and you could own one then, but you can't own one now?

Muskets aren't firearms or regulated under Federal law.

 

[PaulS1950]

You can own and use explosives. You can even do so without a license as long as it is on your own property and outside of a residential area. Dynamite, AnFo, and others are commonly used in rural areas without permits to clear stumps, blast large rocks and reduce hills for agricultural use. These are not part of our rights protected by the second amendment but the do fall into the catagory of constitutionally protected rights.
Oh, and yes there are legal explosives (well you have to mix the two parts before they are an explosive) made for recreational use - such as exploding targets to shoot at. Again, you have to be outside a residential area and on your own property or the property owner has to be involved in order to use them legally - but you can buy the package containing both parts at the local store. (at least here you can)

 

[Dubya]

The 2nd says keep and bear arms.

SCOTUS has further affirmed what that means.

And its not: Explosives.

See, you're just FURTHERING my point like a retard.

Yes, the SCOTUS has done that. WHICH GOES TO SHOW THAT YOU AGREE WITH THE DECISIONS THAT THE SCOTUS MAKES.

And it the SCOTUS gets a case further discussing whether or not assault rifles should be classified as arms a citizen can keep, as per the constitution, and says no?

You'll be fine with it. Because I mean of course you're fine with the limiting of the definition of "arms" in other scenarios, why not this one? No complaints of "Judicial Activism" there!

The fact that the SCOTUS says they're not classified as arms in the scope of the constitution, doesn't mean they're not arms.



My point is what you're already demonstrating for me. The scope has been limited in the past, and you're fine with it... and if it gets limited again, people will be fine that.

I think some laws are good on a federal level and some are good on a state level, because there are conditions that change from one state to another. If there is ever a federal "ban" on assault weapons, they should just make assault weapons Title II weapons, like machine guns and other weapons. That isn't truly a ban, but it removes them from the general weapons people can buy.

It's always been my interpretation that once arms became so destructive, the public wasn't allowed to possess some of them. I consider that just common sense laws.

 

[hazlnut]

Who did Fox News poll?

 

[uscitizen]

Poll: 2/3 of Americans Would Defy Federal Gun Ban​

by Tony Lee
25 Jan 2013

In a Fox News survey, two-thirds of Americans said they would "defy" a federal gun ban and keep their guns if the government ever passed a law to "take your guns."

The survey asked respondents, "If the government passed a law to take your guns, would you give up your guns or defy the law and keep your guns?"

Sixty-five percent of those surveyed said they would "defy the law." Specifically, 70% of Republicans, 68% of conservatives, 52% of Democrats, and 59% of liberals said they would "defy" a federal gun ban to keep their guns.


[Excerpt]

Read more:
Poll: 2/3 of Americans Would Defy Federal Gun Ban

Waah! We are gonna take your guns... NOT!

85% of americans would not honor the law if lies were banned.
90% would not honor the law if they were gona take your computer.

What if..

Being driven by fear is a pathetic way to live.